Reino: Input Validation and Representation

Los problemas de validación y representación de entradas están causados por metacaracteres, codificaciones alternativas y representaciones numéricas. Los problemas de seguridad surgen de entradas en las que se confía. Estos problemas incluyen: «desbordamientos de búfer», ataques de «scripts de sitios», "SQL injection" y muchas otras acciones.

175 elementos encontrados
Debilidades
Abstract
Los datos que no son de confianza se transfieren a la aplicación y se utilizan como expresión regular. Esto puede ocasionar que el subproceso consuma de forma excesiva recursos de CPU.
Explanation
Hay una vulnerabilidad en las implementaciones de evaluadores de expresiones regulares y métodos relacionados que puede provocar que el subproceso se cuelgue al evaluar expresiones regulares que contengan una expresión de agrupación que esté repetida. Adicionalmente, cualquier expresión regular que contenga subexpresiones alternativas que se solapen entre sí también se puede explotar. Este defecto se puede utilizar para ejecutar un ataque de denegación de servicio (DoS).
Ejemplo:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

No hay implementaciones de expresiones regulares conocidas que sean inmunes a esta vulnerabilidad. Todas las plataformas y los lenguajes son vulnerables a este ataque.
References
[1] Microsoft Best Practices for Regular Expressions in the .NET Framework
[2] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[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 Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.dotnet.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Los datos que no son de confianza se transfieren a la aplicación y se utilizan como expresión regular. Esto puede ocasionar que el subproceso consuma de forma excesiva recursos de CPU.
Explanation
Hay una vulnerabilidad en las implementaciones de evaluadores de expresiones regulares y métodos relacionados que puede provocar que el subproceso se cuelgue al evaluar expresiones regulares que contengan una expresión de agrupación repetida. Adicionalmente, cualquier expresión regular que contenga subexpresiones alternativas que se solapen entre sí también se puede explotar. Este defecto se puede utilizar para ejecutar un ataque Denial of Service (DoS).
Ejemplo:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

No hay implementaciones de expresiones regulares conocidas que sean inmunes a esta vulnerabilidad. Todas las plataformas y los lenguajes son vulnerables a este ataque.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.dart.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Los datos que no son de confianza se transfieren a la aplicación y se utilizan como expresión regular. Esto puede ocasionar que el subproceso consuma de forma excesiva recursos de CPU.
Explanation
Hay una vulnerabilidad en las implementaciones de evaluadores de expresiones regulares y métodos relacionados que puede provocar que el subproceso se bloquee al evaluar expresiones regulares que contienen una expresión de agrupación repetida. Adicionalmente, los atacantes pueden explotar cualquier expresión regular que contenga subexpresiones alternativas que se solapen entre sí. Este defecto se puede utilizar para ejecutar un ataque Denial of Service (DoS).
Ejemplo:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

No hay implementaciones de expresiones regulares conocidas que sean inmunes a esta vulnerabilidad. Todas las plataformas y los lenguajes son vulnerables a este ataque.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[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 Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.golang.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Los datos que no son de confianza se transfieren a la aplicación y se utilizan como expresión regular. Esto puede ocasionar que el subproceso consuma de forma excesiva recursos de CPU.
Explanation
Hay una vulnerabilidad en las implementaciones de evaluadores de expresiones regulares y métodos relacionados que puede provocar que el subproceso se cuelgue al evaluar expresiones regulares que contengan una expresión de agrupación que esté repetida. Adicionalmente, cualquier expresión regular que contenga subexpresiones alternativas que se solapen entre sí también se puede explotar. Este defecto se puede utilizar para ejecutar un ataque de denegación de servicio (DoS).
Ejemplo:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

No hay implementaciones de expresiones regulares conocidas que sean inmunes a esta vulnerabilidad. Todas las plataformas y los lenguajes son vulnerables a este ataque.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[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 Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Los datos que no son de confianza se transfieren a la aplicación y se utilizan como expresión regular. Esto puede ocasionar que el subproceso consuma de forma excesiva recursos de CPU.
Explanation
Hay una vulnerabilidad en las implementaciones de evaluadores de expresiones regulares y métodos relacionados que puede provocar que el subproceso se cuelgue al evaluar expresiones regulares que contengan una expresión de agrupación que esté repetida. Adicionalmente, cualquier expresión regular que contenga subexpresiones alternativas que se solapen entre sí también se puede explotar. Este defecto se puede utilizar para ejecutar un ataque de denegación de servicio (DoS).
Ejemplo:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

No hay implementaciones de expresiones regulares conocidas que sean inmunes a esta vulnerabilidad. Todas las plataformas y los lenguajes son vulnerables a este ataque.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.javascript.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Los datos que no son de confianza se transfieren a la aplicación y se utilizan como expresión regular. Esto puede ocasionar que el subproceso consuma de forma excesiva recursos de CPU.
Explanation
Hay una vulnerabilidad en las implementaciones de evaluadores de expresiones regulares y métodos relacionados que puede provocar que el subproceso se cuelgue al evaluar expresiones regulares que contengan una expresión de agrupación repetida. Adicionalmente, cualquier expresión regular que contenga subexpresiones alternativas que se solapen entre sí también se puede explotar. Los atacantes pueden aprovechar este defecto para ejecutar un ataque de denegación de servicio (DoS).
Ejemplo:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

No hay implementaciones de expresiones regulares conocidas que sean inmunes a esta vulnerabilidad. Todas las plataformas y los lenguajes son vulnerables a este ataque.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[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 Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.kotlin.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Los datos que no son de confianza se transfieren a la aplicación y se utilizan como expresión regular. Esto puede ocasionar que el subproceso consuma de forma excesiva recursos de CPU.
Explanation
Hay una vulnerabilidad en las implementaciones de evaluadores de expresiones regulares y métodos relacionados que puede provocar que el subproceso se cuelgue al evaluar expresiones regulares que contengan una expresión de agrupación que esté repetida. Adicionalmente, cualquier expresión regular que contenga subexpresiones alternativas que se solapen entre sí también se puede explotar. Este defecto se puede utilizar para ejecutar un ataque de denegación de servicio (DoS).
Ejemplo 1: Si se utilizan las siguientes expresiones regulares en el código vulnerable identificado se podría producir una denegación de servicio:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+


Ejemplo de código problemático que depende de las expresiones regulares con errores:


NSString *regex = @"^(e+)+$";
NSPredicate *pred = [NSPRedicate predicateWithFormat:@"SELF MATCHES %@", regex];
if ([pred evaluateWithObject:mystring]) {
//do something
}


La mayoría de los analizadores de expresión regulares crean estructuras de autómata finito no determinista (Nondeterministic Finite Automaton, NFA) al evaluar las expresiones regulares. Las NFA prueban todas las coincidencias posibles hasta que se encuentra una coincidencia completa. Teniendo en cuenta el ejemplo anterior, si el usuario malintencionado proporciona la cadena "eeeeZ", a continuación, habrá 16 evaluaciones internas que el analizador regex deberá seguir para identificar una coincidencia. Si el usuario malintencionado proporciona 16 "e" ("eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ") como cadena, el analizador regex deberá realizar 65536 (2^16) evaluaciones. El usuario malintencionado puede llegar a consumir recursos informáticos al aumentar el número de caracteres consecutivos de coincidencia. No hay implementaciones de expresiones regulares conocidas que sean inmunes a esta vulnerabilidad. Todas las plataformas y los lenguajes son vulnerables a este ataque.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.objc.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Los datos que no son de confianza se transfieren a la aplicación y se utilizan como expresión regular. Esto puede ocasionar que el subproceso consuma de forma excesiva recursos de CPU.
Explanation
Hay una vulnerabilidad en las implementaciones de evaluadores de expresiones regulares y métodos relacionados que puede provocar que el subproceso se cuelgue al evaluar expresiones regulares que contengan una expresión de agrupación que esté repetida. Adicionalmente, cualquier expresión regular que contenga subexpresiones alternativas que se solapen entre sí también se puede explotar. Este defecto se puede utilizar para ejecutar un ataque de denegación de servicio (DoS).
Ejemplo:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

No hay implementaciones de expresiones regulares conocidas que sean inmunes a esta vulnerabilidad. Todas las plataformas y los lenguajes son vulnerables a este ataque.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.php.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Los datos que no son de confianza se transfieren a la aplicación y se utilizan como expresión regular. Esto puede ocasionar que el subproceso consuma de forma excesiva recursos de CPU.
Explanation
Hay una vulnerabilidad en las implementaciones de evaluadores de expresiones regulares y métodos relacionados que puede provocar que el subproceso se cuelgue al evaluar expresiones regulares que contengan una expresión de agrupación repetida. Adicionalmente, cualquier expresión regular que contenga subexpresiones alternativas que se solapen entre sí también se puede explotar. Este defecto se puede utilizar para ejecutar un ataque de denegación de servicio (DoS).
Ejemplo:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

No hay implementaciones de expresiones regulares conocidas que sean inmunes a esta vulnerabilidad. Todas las plataformas y los lenguajes son vulnerables a este ataque.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.python.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Los datos que no son de confianza se transfieren a la aplicación y se utilizan como expresión regular. Esto puede ocasionar que el subproceso consuma de forma excesiva recursos de CPU.
Explanation
Hay una vulnerabilidad en las implementaciones de evaluadores de expresiones regulares y métodos relacionados que puede provocar que el subproceso se cuelgue al evaluar superposiciones que se repiten y se alternan de grupos regex anidados y repetidos. Este defecto se puede utilizar para ejecutar un ataque de denegación de servicio (DoS).
Ejemplo:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*

No hay implementaciones de expresiones regulares conocidas que sean inmunes a esta vulnerabilidad. Todas las plataformas y los lenguajes son vulnerables a este ataque.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.ruby.denial_of_service_reqular_expression
Abstract
Los datos que no son de confianza se transfieren a la aplicación y se utilizan como expresión regular. Esto puede ocasionar que el subproceso consuma de forma excesiva recursos de CPU.
Explanation
Hay una vulnerabilidad en las implementaciones de evaluadores de expresiones regulares y métodos relacionados que puede provocar que el subproceso se cuelgue al evaluar expresiones regulares que contengan una expresión de agrupación que esté repetida. Adicionalmente, cualquier expresión regular que contenga subexpresiones alternativas que se solapen entre sí también se puede explotar. Este defecto se puede utilizar para ejecutar un ataque de denegación de servicio (DoS).
Ejemplo:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

No hay implementaciones de expresiones regulares conocidas que sean inmunes a esta vulnerabilidad. Todas las plataformas y los lenguajes son vulnerables a este ataque.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[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 Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.scala.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Los datos que no son de confianza se transfieren a la aplicación y se utilizan como expresión regular. Esto puede ocasionar que el subproceso consuma de forma excesiva recursos de CPU.
Explanation
Hay una vulnerabilidad en las implementaciones de evaluadores de expresiones regulares y métodos relacionados que puede provocar que el subproceso se cuelgue al evaluar expresiones regulares que contengan una expresión de agrupación que esté repetida. Adicionalmente, cualquier expresión regular que contenga subexpresiones alternativas que se solapen entre sí también se puede explotar. Este defecto se puede utilizar para ejecutar un ataque de denegación de servicio (DoS).

Ejemplo 1: Si se utilizan las siguientes expresiones regulares en el código vulnerable identificado se podría producir una denegación de servicio:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+


Ejemplo de código problemático que depende de las expresiones regulares con errores:


let regex : String = "^(e+)+$"
let pred : NSPredicate = NSPRedicate(format:"SELF MATCHES \(regex)")
if (pred.evaluateWithObject(mystring)) {
//do something
}


La mayoría de los analizadores de expresión regulares crean estructuras de autómata finito no determinista (Nondeterministic Finite Automaton, NFA) al evaluar las expresiones regulares. Las NFA prueban todas las coincidencias posibles hasta que se encuentra una coincidencia completa. Teniendo en cuenta el Example 1, si el usuario malintencionado proporciona la cadena "eeeeZ", a continuación, habrá 16 evaluaciones internas que el analizador regex deberá seguir para identificar una coincidencia. Si el usuario malintencionado proporciona 16 "e" ("eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ") como cadena, el analizador regex deberá realizar 65536 (2^16) evaluaciones. El usuario malintencionado puede llegar a consumir recursos informáticos al aumentar el número de caracteres consecutivos de coincidencia. No hay implementaciones de expresiones regulares conocidas que sean inmunes a esta vulnerabilidad. Todas las plataformas y los lenguajes son vulnerables a este ataque.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.swift.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Un atacante podría manipular patrones de enrutamiento con comodines, abarcando efectivamente un amplio espectro de URL o incluso lograr coincidencias para todas las URL, lo que potencialmente podría resultar en el inicio de un ataque de denegación de servicio (DoS).
Explanation
La deficiencia surge de la integración de patrones de enrutamiento comodín a través del método routes.Ignore en aplicaciones ASP.NET. Este método permite que la entrada externa defina comportamientos de enrutamiento. Específicamente, el uso de comodines, como {*allaspx}, proporciona a los atacantes un punto de apoyo para manipular las acciones de enrutamiento. El problema central surge cuando la entrada que controla estos patrones comodín no se valida o desinfecta meticulosamente.
Los actores malintencionados pueden aprovechar esta deficiencia para orquestar un ataque DoS. Al proporcionar información que incorpora patrones de comodines demasiado permisivos, un atacante puede hacer que el sistema de enrutamiento ignore categorías importantes de solicitudes de URL. En el peor de los casos, el atacante podría proporcionar información que abarque todas las URL, lo que provocaría una denegación de servicio generalizada en la que la aplicación se volvería inaccesible.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.dotnet.denial_of_service_routing
Abstract
Un atacante puede introducir datos especialmente diseñados para modificar o definir la implementación de la estructura de datos de un programa, lo que puede resultar en una denegación de servicio debido al agotamiento de la pila.
Explanation
Los datos especificados por el usuario que un programa usa directamente para modificar o definir la implementación de su estructura de datos pueden ser susceptibles de agotamiento de la pila. Por ejemplo, si un usuario puede crear enlaces circulares en una estructura de datos enlazada que se procesa de forma recursiva, esto puede conducir a una recurrencia infinita que da como resultado el agotamiento de la pila.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente fragmento de código demuestra esta vulnerabilidad con Apache Log4j2.

Marker child = MarkerManager.getMarker("child");
Marker parent = MarkerManager.getMarker("parent");

child.addParents(MarkerManager.getMarker(userInput));
parent.addParents(MarkerManager.getMarker(userInput2));

String toInfinity = child.toString();


Este pequeño programa permite al usuario establecer el marcador principal de child y parent en un marcador definido por el usuario. Si el usuario introduce el marcador principal de child para que sea parent, y el marcador principal de parent para que sea child, se crea un enlace circular en la estructura de datos del marcador. Al ejecutar el método recursivo toString en la estructura de datos que contiene el enlace circular, el programa generará una excepción de desbordamiento de pila y fallará. Esto provoca una denegación de servicio por agotamiento de la pila.
References
[1] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730, CWE ID 674
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_stack_exhaustion
Abstract
Si se anexan datos que no son de confianza a la instancia de StringBuilder o StringBuffer inicializada con el tamaño de matriz de respaldo predeterminado, JVM podría consumir espacio de la memoria en montón de forma excesiva.
Explanation
Si se anexan datos controlados por el usuario a una instancia de StringBuilder o StringBuffer inicializada con el tamaño de matriz de caracteres de respaldo predeterminado (16), la aplicación podría consumir una gran cantidad de memoria en montón mientras se cambia el tamaño de la matriz subyacente para acomodar los datos del usuario. Cuando se anexan datos a una instancia StringBuilder o StringBuffer, la instancia determinará si la matriz de caracteres de respaldo posee suficiente espacio libre para almacenar los datos. Si los datos no se pueden acomodar, la instancia StringBuilder o StringBuffer creará una nueva matriz con una capacidad como mínimo dos veces mayor que la anterior, conservándose la matriz antigua en el montón hasta que se recolecte. Los atacantes pueden aprovechar este detalle de implementación para ejecutar un ataque de Denial of Service (DoS).

Ejemplo 1: Se anexan datos controlados por el usuario a una instancia de StringBuilder inicializada con el constructor predeterminado.

...
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
final String lineSeparator = System.lineSeparator();
String[] labels = request.getParameterValues("label");
for (String label : labels) {
sb.append(label).append(lineSeparator);
}
...
References
[1] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[2] MSC05-J. Do not exhaust heap space CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 754
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_stringbuilder
Abstract
Si se anexan datos que no son de confianza a la instancia de StringBuilder o StringBuffer inicializada con el tamaño de matriz de respaldo predeterminado, JVM podría consumir espacio de la memoria en montón de forma excesiva.
Explanation
Si se anexan datos controlados por el usuario a una instancia de StringBuilder o StringBuffer inicializada con el tamaño de matriz de caracteres de respaldo predeterminado (16), la aplicación podría consumir una gran cantidad de memoria en montón mientras se cambia el tamaño de la matriz subyacente para acomodar los datos del usuario. Cuando se anexan datos a una instancia StringBuilder o StringBuffer, la instancia determinará si la matriz de caracteres de respaldo posee suficiente espacio libre para almacenar los datos. Si los datos no se pueden acomodar, la instancia StringBuilder o StringBuffer creará una nueva matriz con una capacidad como mínimo dos veces mayor que la anterior, conservándose la matriz antigua en el montón hasta que se recolecte. Los atacantes pueden aprovechar este detalle de implementación para ejecutar un ataque de Denial of Service (DoS).

Ejemplo 1: se anexan datos controlados por el usuario a una instancia de StringBuilder inicializada con el constructor predeterminado.

...
val sb = StringBuilder()
val labels = request.getParameterValues("label")
for (label in labels) {
sb.appendln(label)
}
...
References
[1] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[2] MSC05-J. Do not exhaust heap space CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 754
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
desc.dataflow.kotlin.denial_of_service_stringbuilder
Abstract
La deserialización defensiva basada en prevenir la deserialización de clases malas conocidas (lista de rechazados) puede permitir que los atacantes eludan esta protección y la vuelvan inútil.
Explanation
La aplicación implementa una técnica de deserialización defensiva denominada deserialización de lectura previa que permite que la aplicación vea las clases deserializadas antes de que estas efectivamente se deserializen.



Las listas de rechazados pueden ser fácilmente eludidas por las nuevas cadenas de artilugios, los paquetes enmarcados o las clases que realizan la deserialización anidada dentro de sus devoluciones de llamadas de deserialización.
References
[1] Fortify Software Security Research The perils of Java deserialization
[2] Fortify Application Defender
[3] Oracle Java Serialization
[4] IBM Look-ahead Java deserialization
[5] OWASP Deserialization of untrusted data
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[11] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[12] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[17] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[18] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[19] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[20] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[21] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[22] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[23] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[32] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[33] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[43] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[44] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.5 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.semantic.java.deserialization_bad_practice_deny_list
Abstract
La interpretación de las instrucciones controladas por el usuario en tiempo de ejecución puede permitir a los usuarios malintencionados ejecutar código malintencionado.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de código se producen cuando el programador supone de forma incorrecta que las instrucciones que se proporcionan directamente desde el usuario llevarán a cabo inocentes operaciones, tales como realizar cálculos sencillos en los objetos del usuario activo o modificando de otro modo el estado de este. Sin embargo, sin una validación adecuada, un usuario podría especificar operaciones que el programador no tiene intención de realizar.

Ejemplo: en este ejemplo de inyección de código clásico, el informe implementa una calculadora básica que permite al usuario especificar los comandos para la ejecución.


...
user_ops = request->get_form_field( 'operation' ).
CONCATENATE: 'PROGRAM zsample.| FORM calculation. |' INTO code_string,
calculator_code_begin user_ops calculator_code_end INTO code_string,
'ENDFORM.|' INTO code_string.
SPLIT code_string AT '|' INTO TABLE code_table.
GENERATE SUBROUTINE POOL code_table NAME calc_prog.
PERFORM calculation IN PROGRAM calc_prog.
...


El programa se comporta bien cuando el parámetro operation es un valor benigno. Sin embargo, si el atacante especifica operaciones de idioma que son válidas y maliciosas al mismo tiempo, dichas operaciones se ejecutarán con todos los privilegios del proceso primario. Estos ataques llegan a ser más peligrosos cuando el código que se inyecta accede a recursos del sistema o ejecuta comandos del sistema. Por ejemplo, si un usuario malintencionado especifica "MOVE 'shutdown -h now' to cmd. CALL 'SYSTEM' ID 'COMMAND' FIELD cmd ID 'TAB' FIELD TABL[]." como valor de operation, se ejecutaría un comando de apagado en el sistema host.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.abap.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
La interpretación de las instrucciones controladas por el usuario en tiempo de ejecución puede permitir a los usuarios malintencionados ejecutar código malintencionado.
Explanation
Muchos lenguajes modernos permiten una interpretación dinámica de las instrucciones de código fuente. Esta capacidad permite a los programadores realizar instrucciones dinámicas basadas en la entrada recibida del usuario. Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de código se producen cuando el programador supone de forma incorrecta que las instrucciones que se proporcionan directamente desde el usuario llevarán a cabo inocentes operaciones, tales como realizar cálculos sencillos en los objetos del usuario activo o modificando de otro modo el estado de este. Sin embargo, sin una validación adecuada, un usuario podría especificar operaciones que el programador no tiene intención de realizar.

Ejemplo: en este ejemplo de inyección de código clásico, la aplicación implementa un calculador básico que permite al usuario especificar los comandos para la ejecución.


...
var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var userOps:String = String(params["operation"]);
result = ExternalInterface.call("eval", userOps);
...


El programa se comporta correctamente cuando el parámetro operation es un valor benigno, como "8 + 7 * 2", en cuyo caso, a la variable result se le asigna un valor de 22. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado especifica operaciones de lenguaje que son válidas y malintencionadas, dichas operaciones deberían ejecutarse con todos los privilegios del proceso principal. Estos ataques son incluso más peligrosos cuando el lenguaje subyacente proporciona acceso a los recursos del sistema o permite la ejecución de comandos del sistema. En el caso de ActionScript, el atacante podría utilizar esta vulnerabilidad para ejecutar un ataque XSS (Cross-Site Scripting).
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.actionscript.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
La interpretación de las instrucciones controladas por el usuario en tiempo de ejecución puede permitir a los usuarios malintencionados ejecutar código malintencionado.
Explanation
Muchos lenguajes modernos permiten una interpretación dinámica de las instrucciones de código fuente. Esta capacidad permite a los programadores realizar instrucciones dinámicas basadas en la entrada recibida del usuario. Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de código se producen cuando el programador supone de forma incorrecta que las instrucciones que se proporcionan directamente desde el usuario llevarán a cabo inocentes operaciones, tales como realizar cálculos sencillos en los objetos del usuario activo o modificando de otro modo el estado de este. Sin embargo, sin una validación adecuada, un usuario podría especificar operaciones que el programador no tiene intención de realizar.

Ejemplo: en este ejemplo de inyección de código clásico, la aplicación implementa una calculadora básica que permite al usuario especificar los comandos para la ejecución.


...
public static object CEval(string sCSCode)
{
CodeDomProvider icc = CodeDomProvider.CreateProvider("CSharp");
CompilerParameters cparam = new CompilerParameters();
cparam.ReferencedAssemblies.Add("system.dll");
cparam.CompilerOptions = "/t:library";
cparam.GenerateInMemory = true;

StringBuilder sb_code = new StringBuilder("");
sb_code.Append("using System;\n");
sb_code.Append("namespace Fortify_CodeEval{ \n");
sb_code.Append("public class FortifyCodeEval{ \n");
sb_code.Append("public object EvalCode(){\n");
sb_code.Append(sCSCode + "\n");
sb_code.Append("} \n");
sb_code.Append("} \n");
sb_code.Append("}\n");

CompilerResults cr = icc.CompileAssemblyFromSource(cparam, sb_code.ToString());
if (cr.Errors.Count > 0)
{
logger.WriteLine("ERROR: " + cr.Errors[0].ErrorText);
return null;
}

System.Reflection.Assembly a = cr.CompiledAssembly;
object o = a.CreateInstance("Fortify_CodeEval.FortifyCodeEval");

Type t = o.GetType();
MethodInfo mi = t.GetMethod("EvalCode");

object s = mi.Invoke(o, null);
return s;
}
...


El programa se comporta correctamente cuando el parámetro sCSCode es un valor benigno, como "return 8 + 7 * 2", en cuyo caso 22 es el valor de devolución de la función CEval. Sin embargo, si el atacante especifica operaciones de idioma que son válidas y maliciosas al mismo tiempo, dichas operaciones se ejecutarán con todos los privilegios del proceso primario. Estos ataques son incluso más peligrosos cuando el lenguaje subyacente proporciona acceso a los recursos del sistema o permite la ejecución de comandos del sistema. Por ejemplo, .Net permite invocar las API de Windows. Si un atacante especifica "return System.Diagnostics.Process.Start(\"shutdown\", \"/s /t 0\");" como el valor de operation, se ejecutará un comando de apagado en el sistema host.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
La interpretación de las instrucciones controladas por el usuario en tiempo de ejecución puede permitir a los usuarios malintencionados ejecutar código malintencionado.
Explanation
Muchos lenguajes modernos permiten una interpretación dinámica de las instrucciones de código fuente. Esta capacidad permite a los programadores realizar instrucciones dinámicas basadas en la entrada recibida del usuario. Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de código se producen cuando el programador supone de forma incorrecta que las instrucciones que se proporcionan directamente desde el usuario llevarán a cabo inocentes operaciones, tales como realizar cálculos sencillos en los objetos del usuario activo o modificando de otro modo el estado de este. Sin embargo, sin una validación adecuada, un usuario podría especificar operaciones que el programador no tiene intención de realizar.

Ejemplo: en este ejemplo de inyección de código clásico, la aplicación implementa un calculador básico que permite al usuario especificar los comandos para la ejecución.


...
ScriptEngineManager scriptEngineManager = new ScriptEngineManager();
ScriptEngine scriptEngine = scriptEngineManager.getEngineByExtension("js");
userOps = request.getParameter("operation");
Object result = scriptEngine.eval(userOps);
...


El programa se comporta correctamente cuando el parámetro operation es un valor benigno, como "8 + 7 * 2", en cuyo caso la variable result se asigna a un valor de 22. No obstante, si un atacante especifica operaciones de idiomas que sean tanto válidas como maliciosas, estas operaciones se ejecutarían con todos los privilegios del proceso primario. Estos ataques son incluso más peligrosos cuando el lenguaje subyacente proporciona acceso a los recursos del sistema o permite la ejecución de comandos del sistema. Por ejemplo, JavaScript permite la invocación de objetos Java. Si un usuario malintencionado especifica " java.lang.Runtime.getRuntime().exec("shutdown -h now")" como valor de operation, se ejecutará un comando de apagado en el sistema host.
References
[1] INJECT-8: Take care interpreting untrusted code Oracle
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
La interpretación de las instrucciones controladas por el usuario en tiempo de ejecución puede permitir a los usuarios malintencionados ejecutar código malintencionado.
Explanation
Muchos lenguajes modernos permiten una interpretación dinámica de las instrucciones de código fuente. Esta capacidad permite a los programadores realizar instrucciones dinámicas basadas en la entrada recibida del usuario. Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de código se producen cuando el programador supone de forma incorrecta que las instrucciones que se proporcionan directamente desde el usuario llevarán a cabo inocentes operaciones, tales como realizar cálculos sencillos en los objetos del usuario activo o modificando de otro modo el estado de este. Sin embargo, sin una validación adecuada, un usuario podría especificar operaciones que el programador no tiene intención de realizar.

Ejemplo: en este ejemplo de inyección de código clásico, la aplicación implementa una calculadora básica que permite al usuario especificar los comandos para la ejecución.


...
userOp = form.operation.value;
calcResult = eval(userOp);
...


El programa se comporta correctamente cuando el parámetro operation es un valor benigno, como "8 + 7 * 2", en cuyo caso la variable calcResult se asigna a un valor de 22. No obstante, si un atacante especifica operaciones de idiomas que sean tanto válidas como maliciosas, estas operaciones se ejecutarían con todos los privilegios del proceso primario. Estos ataques son incluso más peligrosos cuando el lenguaje subyacente proporciona acceso a los recursos del sistema o permite la ejecución de comandos del sistema. En el caso de JavaScript, el atacante puede utilizar esta vulnerabilidad para realizar un ataque de secuencias entre sitios.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
La interpretación de las instrucciones controladas por el usuario en tiempo de ejecución puede permitir a los usuarios malintencionados ejecutar código malintencionado.
Explanation
Muchos lenguajes modernos permiten una interpretación dinámica de las instrucciones de código fuente. Esta capacidad permite a los programadores realizar instrucciones dinámicas basadas en la entrada recibida del usuario. Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de código se producen cuando el programador supone de forma incorrecta que las instrucciones que se proporcionan directamente desde el usuario llevarán a cabo inocentes operaciones, tales como realizar cálculos sencillos en los objetos del usuario activo o modificando de otro modo el estado de este. Sin embargo, sin una validación adecuada, un usuario podría especificar operaciones que el programador no tiene intención de realizar.

Ejemplo: el siguiente código utiliza la entrada de un UITextField para cambiar dinámicamente el color de fondo del contenido de una WKWebView:


...
@property (strong, nonatomic) WKWebView *webView;
@property (strong, nonatomic) UITextField *inputTextField;
...
[_webView evaluateJavaScript:[NSString stringWithFormat:@"document.body.style.backgroundColor="%@";", _inputTextField.text] completionHandler:nil];
...


El programa se comporta de forma correcta cuando la entrada de UITextField es un valor benigno, como "blue", en cuyo caso el elemento <body> de webView debería tener como estilo un fondo azul. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado proporciona una entrada malintencionada todavía válida, podría ser capaz de ejecutar código JavaScript arbitrario. Por ejemplo, dado que JavaScript puede obtener acceso a determinado tipo de información privada, como las cookies, si un usuario malintencionado especificara "white";document.body.innerHTML=document.cookie;"" como entrada de UITextField, la información de cookie se escribiría en la página de manera visible. Estos ataques son incluso más peligrosos cuando el lenguaje subyacente proporciona acceso a los recursos del sistema o permite la ejecución de comandos del sistema, como cuando el código inyectado se ejecuta con todos los privilegios del proceso primario.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.objc.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
La interpretación de las instrucciones controladas por el usuario en tiempo de ejecución puede permitir a los usuarios malintencionados ejecutar código malintencionado.
Explanation
Muchos lenguajes modernos permiten una interpretación dinámica de las instrucciones de código fuente. Esta capacidad permite a los programadores realizar instrucciones dinámicas basadas en la entrada recibida del usuario. Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de código se producen cuando el programador supone de forma incorrecta que las instrucciones que se proporcionan directamente desde el usuario llevarán a cabo inocentes operaciones, tales como realizar cálculos sencillos en los objetos del usuario activo o modificando de otro modo el estado de este. Sin embargo, sin una validación adecuada, un usuario podría especificar operaciones que el programador no tiene intención de realizar.

Ejemplo: en este ejemplo de inyección de código clásico, la aplicación implementa un calculador básico que permite al usuario especificar los comandos para la ejecución.


...
$userOps = $_GET['operation'];
$result = eval($userOps);
...


El programa se comporta correctamente cuando el parámetro operation es un valor benigno, como "8 + 7 * 2", en cuyo caso a la variable result se le asigna un valor de 22. No obstante, si un atacante especifica operaciones de idiomas que sean tanto válidas como maliciosas, estas operaciones se ejecutarían con todos los privilegios del proceso primario. Estos ataques son incluso más peligrosos cuando el lenguaje subyacente proporciona acceso a los recursos del sistema o permite la ejecución de comandos del sistema. Por ejemplo, si un usuario malintencionado especificara "exec('shutdown -h now')" como el valor de operation, se ejecutaría en el sistema host un comando de apagado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
La interpretación de las instrucciones controladas por el usuario en tiempo de ejecución puede permitir a los usuarios malintencionados ejecutar código malintencionado.
Explanation
Muchos lenguajes modernos permiten una interpretación dinámica de las instrucciones de código fuente. Esta capacidad permite a los programadores realizar instrucciones dinámicas basadas en la entrada recibida del usuario. Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de código se producen cuando el programador supone de forma incorrecta que las instrucciones que se proporcionan directamente desde el usuario llevarán a cabo inocentes operaciones, tales como realizar cálculos sencillos en los objetos del usuario activo o modificando de otro modo el estado de este. Sin embargo, sin una validación adecuada, un usuario podría especificar operaciones que el programador no tiene intención de realizar.

Ejemplo: en este ejemplo de inyección de código clásico, la aplicación implementa un calculador básico que permite al usuario especificar los comandos para la ejecución.


...
userOps = request.GET['operation']
result = eval(userOps)
...


El programa se comporta correctamente cuando el parámetro operation es un valor benigno, como "8 + 7 * 2", en cuyo caso a la variable result se le asigna un valor de 22. No obstante, si un atacante especifica operaciones de idiomas que sean tanto válidas como maliciosas, estas operaciones se ejecutarían con todos los privilegios del proceso primario. Estos ataques son incluso más peligrosos cuando el lenguaje subyacente proporciona acceso a los recursos del sistema o permite la ejecución de comandos del sistema. Por ejemplo, si un usuario malintencionado especificara "os.system('shutdown -h now')" como el valor de operation, se ejecutaría en el sistema host un comando de apagado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
La interpretación de las instrucciones controladas por el usuario en tiempo de ejecución puede permitir a los usuarios malintencionados ejecutar código malintencionado.
Explanation
Muchos lenguajes modernos permiten una interpretación dinámica de las instrucciones de código fuente. Esta capacidad permite a los programadores realizar instrucciones dinámicas basadas en la entrada recibida del usuario. Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de código se producen cuando el programador supone de forma incorrecta que las instrucciones que se proporcionan directamente desde el usuario llevarán a cabo inocentes operaciones, tales como realizar cálculos sencillos en los objetos del usuario activo o modificando de otro modo el estado de este. Sin embargo, sin una validación adecuada, un usuario podría especificar operaciones que el programador no tiene intención de realizar.
Ejemplo: en este ejemplo de inyección de código, la aplicación implementa un calculador básico que permite al usuario especificar comandos para ejecutarlos.


...
user_ops = req['operation']
result = eval(user_ops)
...


El programa se comporta correctamente cuando el parámetro operation es un valor benigno, como "8 + 7 * 2", en cuyo caso la variable result se asigna a un valor de 22. No obstante, si un atacante especifica operaciones de idiomas que sean tanto válidas como maliciosas, estas operaciones se ejecutarían con todos los privilegios del proceso primario. Estos ataques son incluso más peligrosos cuando el lenguaje subyacente proporciona acceso a los recursos del sistema o permite la ejecución de comandos del sistema. Con Ruby esto se permite y, dado que se pueden ejecutar varios comandos delimitando las líneas con un punto y coma (;), también habilitaría la ejecución de múltiples comandos con una sola inyección, sin romper el programa por ello.
Si un usuario malintencionado enviara para el parámetro operation "system(\"nc -l 4444 &\");8+7*2", se abriría el puerto 4444 para escuchar una conexión en el equipo y seguiría devolviendo el valor de 22 a result
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
La interpretación de las instrucciones controladas por el usuario en tiempo de ejecución puede permitir a los usuarios malintencionados ejecutar código malintencionado.
Explanation
Muchos lenguajes modernos permiten una interpretación dinámica de las instrucciones de código fuente. Esta capacidad permite a los programadores realizar instrucciones dinámicas basadas en la entrada recibida del usuario. Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de código se producen cuando el programador supone de forma incorrecta que las instrucciones que se proporcionan directamente desde el usuario llevarán a cabo inocentes operaciones, tales como realizar cálculos sencillos en los objetos del usuario activo o modificando de otro modo el estado de este. Sin embargo, sin una validación adecuada, un usuario podría especificar operaciones que el programador no tiene intención de realizar.

Ejemplo: El siguiente código utiliza la entrada de un UITextField para cambiar dinámicamente el color de fondo del contenido de una WKWebView:


...
var webView : WKWebView
var inputTextField : UITextField
...
webView.evaluateJavaScript("document.body.style.backgroundColor="\(inputTextField.text)";" completionHandler:nil)
...


El programa se comporta de forma correcta cuando la entrada de UITextField es un valor benigno, como "blue", en cuyo caso el elemento <body> de webView debería tener como estilo un fondo azul. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado proporciona una entrada malintencionada todavía válida, podría ser capaz de ejecutar código JavaScript arbitrario. Por ejemplo, dado que JavaScript puede obtener acceso a determinado tipo de información privada, como las cookies, si un usuario malintencionado especificara "white";document.body.innerHTML=document.cookie;"" como entrada de UITextField, la información de cookie se escribiría en la página de manera visible. Estos ataques son incluso más peligrosos cuando el lenguaje subyacente proporciona acceso a los recursos del sistema o permite la ejecución de comandos del sistema, como cuando el código inyectado se ejecuta con todos los privilegios del proceso primario.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
La ejecución de instrucciones de origen arbitrarias desde una fuente no fiable puede tener como consecuencia la ejecución de código malintencionado.
Explanation
Muchos lenguajes modernos permiten una interpretación dinámica de las instrucciones de código fuente. Esta capacidad se puede utilizar cuando el programador necesita llevar a cabo las instrucciones que el usuario proporciona en los datos, pero debería utilizar las construcciones de lenguaje subyacente en lugar de implementar código para interpretar la entrada del usuario. Las instrucciones que proporciona el usuario deben ser operaciones sencillas tales como cálculos pequeños en objetos de usuario activo, la modificación del estado de los objetos de usuario, etc. Sin embargo, si un programador no tiene cuidado, un usuario puede especificar operaciones que queden fuera de las intenciones del programador.

Ejemplo: la calculadora es un ejemplo clásico de aplicación que permite al usuario especificar construcciones de programación subyacentes. El siguiente código ASP acepta que las operaciones matemáticas básicas del usuario se calculen y se devuelvan resultados:


...
strUserOp = Request.Form('operation')
strResult = Eval(strUserOp)
...


El comportamiento esperado del programa se retiene en un ejemplo donde el parámetro operation es "8 + 7 * 2". La variable strResult devuelve un valor de 22. Sin embargo, si un usuario especifica otras operaciones de lenguaje válidas, esas no solo se ejecutan, sino que lo hacen con todos los privilegios del proceso principal. La ejecución de código arbitraria será más peligrosa cuando el lenguaje subyacente proporcione acceso a los recursos del sistema o permita la ejecución de comandos del sistema. Por ejemplo, si un usuario malintencionado especifica operation como " Shell('C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\TSSHUTDN.EXE 0 /DELAY:0 /POWERDOWN')" se ejecutaría un comando de apagado en el sistema host.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95, CWE ID 494
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.4 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.vb.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_injection
Abstract
Permitir que la entrada de usuario no válida influya en el entorno de tiempo de ejecución de código ejecutado dinámicamente podría permitir a los atacantes ejecutar código malintencionado.
Explanation
Muchos lenguajes modernos permiten una interpretación dinámica de las instrucciones de código fuente. Esta capacidad permite a los programadores ejecutar operaciones dinámicas basadas en la entrada recibida del usuario. Las vulnerabilidades de manipulación de código se producen cuando el programador permite que algunos datos proporcionados por el usuario modifiquen un aspecto del entorno de tiempo de ejecución de código ejecutado dinámicamente. Sin una validación adecuada, un usuario podría especificar operaciones que el programador no tenía previstas.

Ejemplo: en este ejemplo, la aplicación recupera el ámbito de ejecución del script de la aplicación web.


...
ScriptEngineManager scriptEngineManager = new ScriptEngineManager();
ScriptEngine scriptEngine = scriptEngineManager.getEngineByExtension("js");
ScriptContext newContext = new SimpleScriptContext();
Bindings engineScope = newContext.getBindings(request.getParameter("userName"));

userOps = request.getParameter("operation");
Object result = scriptEngine.eval(userOps,newContext);
...


El programa se comporta correctamente cuando el parámetro page_scope es el nombre de usuario previsto. Sin embargo, si un atacante especifica el valor para GLOBAL_SCOPE, las operaciones tendrán acceso a todos los atributos de todos los motores creados por el mismo ScriptEngine.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94, CWE ID 494
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Process Validation (WASC-40), Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.dynamic_code_evaluation_code_manipulation