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.

83 elementos encontrados
Debilidades
Abstract
La clase está anotada como inmutable, pero un campo está mutado.
Explanation
A esta clase se le ha dado la anotación de Inmutable, desde el paquete de anotaciones de JCIP. Sin embargo, uno de los campos mutables de la clase presenta un método de mutación al que se llama desde fuera del constructor y el destructor.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código para una clase final inmutable declara un Set como private y final y, a continuación, crea erróneamente un método que modifica el Set.


@Immutable
public final class ThreeStooges {
private final Set stooges = new HashSet>();
...

public void addStooge(String name) {
stooges.add(name);
}
...
}
References
[1] B. Goetz Java Concurrency in Practice. Chapter 3: Sharing Objects Guidelines
[2] Package net.jcip.annotations Specification
[3] MUTABLE-1: Prefer immutability for value types Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 471
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
desc.structural.java.immutable_field_mutation
Abstract
La clase se ha anotado como inmutable, pero un campo no es final.
Explanation
A esta clase se le ha dado la anotación de Immutable, desde el paquete de anotaciones de JCIP. Un campo no final infringe la inmutabilidad de la clase al permitir la modificación del valor.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código de una clase inmutable declara de forma incorrecta un campo public y no final.


@Immutable
public class ImmutableInteger {
public int value;

}
References
[1] B. Goetz Java Concurrency in Practice. Chapter 3: Sharing Objects Guidelines
[2] Package net.jcip.annotations Specification
[3] OBJ58-J. Limit the extensibility of classes and methods with invariants CERT
[4] MUTABLE-1: Prefer immutability for value types Oracle
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 471
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
desc.structural.java.immutable_non_final_fields
Abstract
La clase se ha anotado como inmutable, pero un campo se ha modificado.
Explanation
A esta clase se le ha dado la anotación de Inmutable, desde el paquete de anotaciones de JCIP. Un campo público de tipo mutable permite que el código externo a la clase modifique el contenido e infrinja la inmutabilidad de la clase.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente para una clase final inmutable declara erróneamente un Set como public y final.


@Immutable
public final class ThreeStooges {
public final Set stooges = new HashSet();
...
}
References
[1] B. Goetz Java Concurrency in Practice. Chapter 3: Sharing Objects Guidelines
[2] Package net.jcip.annotations Specification
[3] MUTABLE-1: Prefer immutability for value types Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 471
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
desc.structural.java.immutable_public_mutable_fields
Abstract
El estándar J2EE prohíbe la administración directa de las conexiones.
Explanation
El estándar J2EE requiere que las aplicaciones usen las utilidades de administración de recursos del contenedor para obtener conexiones a los recursos.

Por ejemplo, una aplicación J2EE debe obtener una conexión de base de datos, como se indica a continuación:


ctx = new InitialContext();
datasource = (DataSource)ctx.lookup(DB_DATASRC_REF);
conn = datasource.getConnection();


y debe evitar obtener una conexión de la siguiente forma:


conn = DriverManager.getConnection(CONNECT_STRING);


Todos los contenedores de aplicaciones web principales ofrecen administración de conexiones de base de datos agrupadas en conjuntos como parte de su estructura de administración de recursos. La duplicación de esta funcionalidad en una aplicación es difícil y susceptible a errores, que es parte del motivo por el que está prohibida en virtud de la norma de J2EE.
References
[1] Java 2 Platform Enterprise Edition Specification, v1.4 Sun Microsystems
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 245
desc.semantic.java.j2ee_badpractices_getconnection
Abstract
La comunicación basada en socket de las aplicaciones web es susceptible a errores.
Explanation
El estándar J2EE permite el uso de sockets solo para la comunicación con sistemas existentes cuando no hay ningún protocolo de nivel superior disponible. Para que pueda crear su propio protocolo de comunicación, debe hacer frente a complejos problemas de seguridad, entre los que se incluyen:

- Señalización en banda frente a fuera de banda

- Compatibilidad entre versiones del protocolo

- Seguridad de canal

- Administración de errores

- Restricciones de red (firewalls)

- Administración de sesiones

Sin un análisis importante por parte de un experto en seguridad, lo más probable es que un protocolo de comunicación personalizado presente problemas de seguridad.

Muchos de los mismos problemas se aplican a la implementación personalizada de un protocolo estándar. Aunque, por lo general, hay más recursos disponibles que solucionan los problemas de seguridad relacionados con la implementación de un protocolo estándar, estos recursos también están disponibles para los usuarios malintencionados.
References
[1] Java 2 Platform Enterprise Edition Specification, v1.4 Sun Microsystems
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 246
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
desc.semantic.java.j2ee_badpractices_sockets
Abstract
Una instancia de etcd acepta conexiones TLS de clientes que utilizan certificados autofirmados.
Explanation
Kubernetes mantiene datos confidenciales en un clúster etcd. Por lo tanto, cada instancia de etcd solo debe aceptar conexiones de clientes autenticados y autorizados y rechazar cualquier cliente que use un certificado autofirmado para conexiones TLS.

Ejemplo 1: La siguiente configuración inicia una instancia etcd y establece la marca --auto-tls en true. Como resultado, la instancia etcd usa certificados autofirmados para las conexiones TLS con los clientes.

...
spec:
containers:
- command:
...
- etcd
...
- --auto-tls=true
...
References
[1] Operating etcd clusters for Kubernetes The Kubernetes Authors
[2] etcd configuration etcd Authors
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark Recommendation 2.3
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 296
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [25] CWE ID 295
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000166, CCI-000185, CCI-001941, CCI-001942
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) (P1), IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-17 Public Key Infrastructure Certificates (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-10 Non-Repudiation, IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users), IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-17 Public Key Infrastructure Certificates
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.9
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3305 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3305 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3305 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3305 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3305 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3305 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3305 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15), Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.structural.yaml.kubernetes_misconfiguration_weak_etcd_ssl_certificate.base
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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_request_parameters_bound_via_input_formatters
Abstract
Es posible que el programa elimine la referencia de un puntero nulo porque no comprueba el valor de devolución de una función que puede que devuelva un valor null.
Explanation
Prácticamente cada ataque grave a un sistema de software comienza con la infracción de los supuestos del programador. Después del ataque, las suposiciones del programador parecen débiles y mal fundadas, pero antes de un ataque muchos programadores defenderían sus suposiciones mucho más allá del final de la hora del almuerzo.

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Este argumento pasa por alto tres consideraciones importantes:

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


public boolean equals(Object object)
{
return (toString().equals(object.toString()));
}
References
[1] MET10-J. Follow the general contract when implementing the compareTo() method CERT
[2] MET08-J. Preserve the equality contract when overriding the equals() method CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
desc.controlflow.java.missing_check_for_null_parameter
Abstract
Un método clone() debe llamar super.clone() para obtener el nuevo objeto.
Explanation
Todas las implementaciones de clone() deben obtener el nuevo objeto llamando super.clone(). Si una clase no puede seguir esta convención, un método clone() de subclase devolverá un objeto del tipo incorrecto.


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


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

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

En caso de no mantenerse esta invariable, es probable que se produzcan problemas si los objetos de esta clase se almacenan en una colección. Si los objetos de la clase en cuestión se utilizan como clave en una Hashtable o si se insertan en un Dictionary, es fundamental que los objetos iguales tengan códigos hash iguales.

Ejemplo 1: La clase siguiente ignora Equals() pero no GetHashCode().


public class Halfway() {
public override boolean Equals(object obj) {
...
}
}
References
[1] MSDN Library: Equals Method (Object) Microsoft Corporation
[2] MSDN Library: GetHashCode Method (Object) Microsoft Corporation
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 581
desc.structural.dotnet.object_model_violation.just_one_of_equals_hashcode_defined
Abstract
Esta clase ignora solo uno de equals() y hashCode().
Explanation
Se espera que los objetos Java obedezcan un número de invariables relacionadas con la igualdad. Una de estas invariables es que los objetos iguales deben tener códigos hash iguales. En otras palabras, si a.equals(b) == true, entonces a.hashCode() == b.hashCode().

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

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


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

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

public class KibitzState implements StateHolder {
public Object saveState(FacesContext fc) {
...
}
}
References
[1] Sun Microsystems JavaDoc for StateHolder Interface
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
desc.structural.java.object_model_violation_just_one_of_restoreState_saveState_defined
Abstract
Las funciones, checkCallingOrSelfPermission () o checkCallingOrSelfUriPermission (), deben usarse con cuidado ya que permiten que el programa que realiza la llamada, sin los permisos requeridos o sin permisos, eluda la verificación de permisos, utilizando los permisos de su aplicación.
Explanation
La función checkCallingOrSelfPermission() o checkCallingOrSelfUriPermission() determina si el programa que realiza la llamada cuenta con el permiso necesario para acceder a determinado servicio o URI. Sin embargo, estas funciones deben utilizarse con cuidado, ya que pueden conceder acceso a aplicaciones malintencionadas, que carecen de los permisos correspondientes, adoptando los permisos de las aplicaciones.

En otras palabras, una aplicación malintencionada sin los permisos correspondientes puede omitir la comprobación de permisos mediante la adopción del permiso de la aplicación para obtener acceso a recursos a los que, de lo contrario, no podría acceder. Esto provoca lo que se conoce como ataque de tipo "confused deputy".
References
[1] Designing for Security Android
[2] Context: Android Developers Android
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 275
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.5 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 863
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.structural.java.often_misused_android_permission_check
Abstract
A continuación, el código confirma a los autores de la llamada que se ha concedido un determinado permiso, lo que permitirá a un usuario malintencionado omitir los controles de seguridad.
Explanation
Los permisos de .NET Framework funcionan avanzando por el árbol de pila (donde el árbol crece hacia abajo), para comprobar si los permisos establecidos son suficientes para acceder a un recurso. Cuando un desarrollador usa Assert() con un permiso concreto, es una forma de decir que el flujo de control actual tiene el permiso especificado. Esto provoca que .NET Framework detenga cualquier comprobación de permisos adicional, siempre y cuando se hayan satisfecho los permisos necesarios, por lo que el código que llama al código que realiza la llamada a Assert() podría no tener el permiso requerido. Usar Assert() es útil en ciertos casos, pero puede dar lugar a vulnerabilidades cuando permite que un usuario malintencionado tome el control de un recurso que no tendría derecho a controlar de otro modo.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 275
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002038, CCI-002039, CCI-002165
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), IA-11 Re-Authentication (P0)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, SC-11 Trusted Path
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.5 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[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 A01 Broken Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[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 - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 863
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.dotnet.often_misused_asserting_permissions
Abstract
Los atacantes pueden reemplazar las entradas DNS. Por motivos de seguridad, no confíe en nombres DNS.
Explanation
Muchos servidores DNS son susceptibles de sufrir ataques, por eso debe suponer que su software se ejecutará alguna vez en un entorno con un servidor DNS afectado. Si los atacantes están autorizados a hacer actualizaciones de DNS (a veces denominado envenenamiento de la caché del DNS), pueden redirigir su tráfico de red a través de sus equipos o hacer que parezca que sus direcciones IP forman parte de su dominio. No base la seguridad de su sistema en nombres DNS.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente ejemplo de código utiliza una búsqueda DNS para determinar si una solicitud entrante es de un host de confianza o no. Si un atacante es capaz de dañar la caché DNS, puede obtener un estatus de confianza.


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


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


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


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


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

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

...
String isValid = "true";
if ( Boolean.getBoolean(isValid) ) {
System.out.println("TRUE");
}
else {
System.out.println("FALSE");
}
...
References
[1] Class Boolean Oracle
[2] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[3] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
desc.semantic.java.often_misused_boolean_getboolean
Abstract
El reemplazo incorrecto de las clases de .NET Framework puede provocar que se ejecute código arbitrario en el servidor, que se abuse de la lógica de la aplicación o que se deniegue el servicio.
Explanation
Independientemente del lenguaje en el que esté escrito un programa, los ataques más devastadores normalmente incluyen la ejecución remota de código, con la cual un atacante consigue ejecutar código malintencionado en el contexto del programa. El método GetChars en las clases Decoder y Encoding, y el método GetBytes en las clases Encoder y Encoding de .NET Framework llevan a cabo aritmética de puntero de forma interna en las matrices de caracteres y bytes para convertir un intervalo de caracteres en un intervalo de bytes y viceversa.
Cuando se realizan operaciones de aritmética de puntero, los desarrolladores suelen sustituir los métodos anteriores incorrectamente e introducen vulnerabilidades como la ejecución de código arbitrario, el abuso de la lógica de la aplicación y la denegación del servicio.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 176
[2] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.2 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
desc.structural.dotnet.often_misused_encoding
Abstract
Este método es difícil de usar correctamente.
Explanation
Es fácil creer que este método de codificación le protegerá contra ataques de inserción; sin embargo, si el método no se usa exactamente en el contexto adecuado, puede ofrecer mucha menos protección de la que merece.

Ejemplo 1: la siguiente llamada de codificación permite a un atacante tener un poco de libertad para insertar JavaScript malintencionado:

out.println("x = " + encoder.encodeForJavaScript(input) + ";");
References
[1] OWASP ESAPI Secure Coding Guideline
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 176
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.2 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
desc.structural.java.often_misused_encoding
Abstract
Es posible que la llamada ajuste perfectamente los caracteres. Los caracteres no admitidos que se transfieren a los métodos de la API de forma predeterminada se pueden asignar con ajuste perfecto a caracteres peligrosos.
Explanation
Cuando los juegos de caracteres entre el sistema operativo y las aplicaciones que se ejecutan en este no coinciden, los caracteres no admitidos que se pasan a los métodos de la API de forma predeterminada pueden asignarse con ajuste perfecto a caracteres peligrosos.

Ejemplo 1:en Objective-C, el ejemplo siguiente convierte un objeto NSString que contiene un carácter UTF-8 a datos ASCII de nuevo:


...
unichar ellipsis = 0x2026;
NSString *myString = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"My Test String%C", ellipsis];
NSData *asciiData = [myString dataUsingEncoding:NSASCIIStringEncoding allowLossyConversion:YES];
NSString *asciiString = [[NSString alloc] initWithData:asciiData encoding:NSASCIIStringEncoding];
NSLog(@"Original: %@ (length %d)", myString, [myString length]);
NSLog(@"Best-fit-mapped: %@ (length %d)", asciiString, [asciiString length]);
// output:
// Original: My Test String... (length 15)
// Best-fit-mapped: My Test String... (length 17)
...


Si examina cuidadosamente el resultado, el carácter "..." se tradujo por tres puntos consecutivos. Si ha medido el búfer de salida basándose en el búfer de entrada, la aplicación podría ser vulnerable al buffer overflow. Se pueden asignar otros caracteres de un carácter a dos. El carácter griego "fi" se asignará a una "f" seguida de una letra "i". Al cargar el búfer con estos caracteres de carga frontal, un usuario malintencionado obtiene un control completo sobre el número de caracteres que se utilizan para provocar el buffer overflow.
References
[1] Apple Secure Coding Guide Apple
[2] String Programming Guide Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 176
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.2 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
desc.semantic.objc.method_may_best_fit_map_characters
Abstract
Es posible que la llamada ajuste perfectamente los caracteres. Los caracteres no admitidos que se transfieren a los métodos de la API de forma predeterminada se pueden asignar con ajuste perfecto a caracteres peligrosos.
Explanation
Cuando los juegos de caracteres entre el sistema operativo y las aplicaciones que se ejecutan en este no coinciden, los caracteres no admitidos que se pasan a los métodos de la API de forma predeterminada pueden asignarse con ajuste perfecto a caracteres peligrosos.

Ejemplo 1: En Swift, el ejemplo siguiente convierte un objeto NSString que contiene un carácter UTF-8 a datos ASCII de nuevo:


...
let ellipsis = 0x2026;
let myString = NSString(format:"My Test String %C", ellipsis)
let asciiData = myString.dataUsingEncoding(NSASCIIStringEncoding, allowLossyConversion:true)
let asciiString = NSString(data:asciiData!, encoding:NSASCIIStringEncoding)
NSLog("Original: %@ (length %d)", myString, myString.length)
NSLog("Best-fit-mapped: %@ (length %d)", asciiString!, asciiString!.length)

// output:
// Original: My Test String ... (length 16)
// Best-fit-mapped: My Test String ... (length 18)
...


Si examina cuidadosamente el resultado, el carácter "..." se tradujo por tres puntos consecutivos. Si ha medido el búfer de salida basándose en el búfer de entrada, la aplicación podría ser vulnerable al buffer overflow. Se pueden asignar otros caracteres de un carácter a dos. El carácter griego "fi" se asignará a una "f" seguida de una letra "i". Al cargar el búfer con estos caracteres de carga frontal, un usuario malintencionado obtiene un control completo sobre el número de caracteres que se utilizan para provocar el buffer overflow.
References
[1] Apple Secure Coding Guide Apple
[2] String Programming Guide Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 176
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.2 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
desc.semantic.swift.method_may_best_fit_map_characters