1464 elementos encontrados
Debilidades
Abstract
El método identificado carga una página en una webview, pero no implementa ningún control para evitar ataques de marcado automático cuando se visitan sitios malintencionados.
Explanation
Salvo que el contenido de la página esté completamente bajo su control, el usuario puede hacer clic en vínculos que podrían ser usados por atacantes malintencionados para iniciar automáticamente llamadas telefónicas o de FaceTime.

Por ejemplo, es posible que su aplicación muestre una publicación en un blog, o tweet, que puede contener vínculos. El autor de la publicación o tweet que su usuario está visitando podrá usar cualquier vínculo arbitrario en sus páginas. Si sus usuarios visitan un sitio malintencionado y se les engaña u obliga de forma automática para hacer clic en un vínculo, es posible que un atacante inicie llamadas telefónicas o de FaceTime automáticas y bloquee el dispositivo durante unos segundos para evitar que el usuario cancele la llamada. Tenga en cuenta que, aunque controle la página de destino, puede que los usuarios terminen explorando sitios que no son de confianza.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente fragmento de código usa una webview para cargar un sitio que puede contener vínculos que no son de confianza, pero no especifica un delegado capaz de validar las solicitudes iniciadas en esta webview:


...
NSURL *webUrl = [[NSURL alloc] initWithString:@"https://some.site.com/"];
NSURLRequest *webRequest = [[NSURLRequest alloc] initWithURL:webUrl];
[_webView loadRequest:webRequest];
...
References
[1] Collin Mulliner iOS WebView auto dialer bug
[2] Apple UIWebViewDelegate
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] 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
[18] 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
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.objc.link_injection_auto_dial
Abstract
El método identificado carga una página en una webview, pero no implementa ningún control para evitar ataques de marcado automático cuando se visitan sitios malintencionados.
Explanation
Salvo que el contenido de la página esté completamente bajo su control, el usuario puede hacer clic en vínculos que podrían ser usados por atacantes malintencionados para iniciar automáticamente llamadas telefónicas o de FaceTime.

Por ejemplo, es posible que su aplicación muestre una publicación en un blog, o tweet, que puede contener vínculos. El autor de la publicación o tweet que su usuario está visitando podrá usar cualquier vínculo arbitrario en sus páginas. Si sus usuarios visitan un sitio malintencionado y se les engaña u obliga de forma automática para hacer clic en un vínculo, es posible que un atacante inicie llamadas telefónicas o de FaceTime automáticas y bloquee el dispositivo durante unos segundos para evitar que el usuario cancele la llamada. Tenga en cuenta que, aunque controle la página de destino, puede que los usuarios terminen explorando sitios que no son de confianza.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente fragmento de código usa una webview para cargar un sitio que puede contener vínculos que no son de confianza, pero no especifica un delegado capaz de validar las solicitudes iniciadas en esta webview:


...
let webUrl : NSURL = NSURL(string: "https://some.site.com/")!
let webRequest : NSURLRequest = NSURLRequest(URL: webUrl)
webView.loadRequest(webRequest)
...
References
[1] Collin Mulliner iOS WebView auto dialer bug
[2] Apple UIWebViewDelegate
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] 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
[18] 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
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.link_injection_auto_dial
Abstract
El método identificado carga una página en una webview pero no implementa ningún control para verificar y validar los vínculos en los que el usuario podrá hacer clic.
Explanation
Salvo que el contenido de la página esté completamente bajo su control, el usuario podrá hacer clic en los vínculos que tal vez sean usados por atacantes malintencionados para iniciar acciones no deseadas.

Por ejemplo, es posible que su aplicación muestre una publicación en un blog, o tweet, que puede contener vínculos. El autor de la publicación o tweet que su usuario está visitando podrá usar cualquier vínculo arbitrario en sus páginas. Si sus usuarios visitan un sitio malintencionado y se les engaña u obliga de forma automática para hacer clic en un vínculo, es posible que un atacante inicie acciones potencialmente peligrosas, como el uso de esquemas de URL para iniciar llamadas telefónicas o de FaceTime, enviar datos o iniciar acciones en aplicaciones de terceros, etc. Tenga en cuenta que, aunque controle la página de destino, puede que los usuarios terminen explorando sitios que no son de confianza.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente fragmento de código usa una webview para cargar un sitio que puede contener vínculos que no son de confianza, pero no especifica un delegado capaz de validar las solicitudes iniciadas en esta webview:


...
NSURL *webUrl = [[NSURL alloc] initWithString:@"https://some.site.com/"];
NSURLRequest *webRequest = [[NSURLRequest alloc] initWithURL:webUrl];
[webView loadRequest: webRequest];
References
[1] Collin Mulliner iOS WebView auto dialer bug
[2] Apple UIWebViewDelegate
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] 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
[18] 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
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.objc.link_injection_missing_validation
Abstract
El método identificado carga una página en una webview pero no implementa ningún control para verificar y validar los vínculos en los que el usuario podrá hacer clic.
Explanation
Salvo que el contenido de la página esté completamente bajo su control, el usuario podrá hacer clic en los vínculos que tal vez sean usados por atacantes malintencionados para iniciar acciones no deseadas.

Por ejemplo, es posible que su aplicación muestre una publicación en un blog, o tweet, que puede contener vínculos. El autor de la publicación o tweet que su usuario está visitando podrá usar cualquier vínculo arbitrario en sus páginas. Si sus usuarios visitan un sitio malintencionado y se les engaña u obliga de forma automática para hacer clic en un vínculo, es posible que un atacante inicie acciones potencialmente peligrosas, como el uso de esquemas de URL para iniciar llamadas telefónicas o de FaceTime, enviar datos o iniciar acciones en aplicaciones de terceros, etc. Tenga en cuenta que, aunque controle la página de destino, puede que los usuarios terminen explorando sitios que no son de confianza.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente fragmento de código usa una webview para cargar un sitio que puede contener vínculos que no son de confianza, pero no especifica un delegado capaz de validar las solicitudes iniciadas en esta webview:


...
let webUrl = URL(string: "https://some.site.com/")!
let urlRequest = URLRequest(url: webUrl)
webView.load(webRequest)
...
References
[1] Collin Mulliner iOS WebView auto dialer bug
[2] Apple UIWebViewDelegate
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] 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
[18] 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
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.link_injection_missing_validation
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor de un objeto de solicitud. A continuación, se registra el valor.


...
DATA log_msg TYPE bal_s_msg.

val = request->get_form_field( 'val' ).

log_msg-msgid = 'XY'.
log_msg-msgty = 'E'.
log_msg-msgno = '123'.
log_msg-msgv1 = 'VAL: '.
log_msg-msgv2 = val.

CALL FUNCTION 'BAL_LOG_MSG_ADD'
EXPORTING
I_S_MSG = log_msg
EXCEPTIONS
LOG_NOT_FOUND = 1
MSG_INCONSISTENT = 2
LOG_IS_FULL = 3
OTHERS = 4.
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "FOO" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


XY E 123 VAL: FOO


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "FOO XY E 124 VAL: BAR", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


XY E 123 VAL: FOO XY E 124 VAL: BAR


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.abap.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var val:String = String(params["username"]);
var value:Number = parseInt(val);
if (value == Number.NaN) {
trace("Failed to parse val = " + val);
}


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


Failed to parse val=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


Failed to parse val=twenty-one

User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.actionscript.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos se introducen en una aplicación desde una fuente no fiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o en un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


...
string val = (string)Session["val"];
try {
int value = Int32.Parse(val);
}
catch (FormatException fe) {
log.Info("Failed to parse val= " + val);
}
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.log_forging
Abstract
La escritura de una entrada de usuario no validada en los archivos de registro puede permitir a un usuario malintencionado falsificar contenido malicioso en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos escritos en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. En función de la naturaleza de la aplicación, los archivos de registro se pueden revisar manualmente según sea necesario o analizar automáticamente de forma selectiva mediante herramientas que buscan en los registros tendencias o puntos de datos importantes.

El análisis de los archivos de registro puede verse entorpecido o las conclusiones basadas en los datos de registro pueden ser incorrectas si se permite a un usuario malintencionado proporcionar datos en la aplicación que se registran posteriormente de forma exacta. Un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el registro incluyendo caracteres de separador de entradas de registro en los datos. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor caso, un usuario malintencionado introduce código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovecha una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento de registros [2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código de una secuencia de comandos CGI acepta una cadena enviada por el usuario e intenta convertirla en el valor de entero largo que representa. Si el valor no se analiza como un entero, su valor se registra con un mensaje de error que indica lo sucedido.


long value = strtol(val, &endPtr, 10);
if (*endPtr != '\0')
syslog(LOG_INFO,"Illegal value = %s",val);
...



Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


Illegal value=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one\n\nINFO: User logged out=evil", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=evil


Claramente, el atacante puede utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias. Para que un ataque de falsificación de registro de este tipo sea eficaz, el usuario malintencionado debe identificar primero formatos de entrada de registro válidos, pero esto a menudo se puede realizar mediante pérdidas de información del sistema en la aplicación de destino.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cpp.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En los casos menos graves, un atacante podría insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro, proporcionando a la aplicación una entrada que incluya caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante podría inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor de un formulario HTML. A continuación, se registra el valor.


...
01 LOGAREA.
05 VALHEADER PIC X(50) VALUE 'VAL: '.
05 VAL PIC X(50).
...

EXEC CICS
WEB READ
FORMFIELD(NAME)
VALUE(VAL)
...
END-EXEC.

EXEC DLI
LOG
FROM(LOGAREA)
LENGTH(50)
END-EXEC.
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "FOO" para VAL, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


VAL: FOO


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "FOO VAL: BAR", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


VAL: FOO VAL: BAR


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cobol.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.


2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.


Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un formulario web. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


<cflog file="app_log" application="No" Thread="No"
text="Failed to parse val="#Form.val#">


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


"Information",,"02/28/01","14:50:37",,"Failed to parse val=twenty-one"


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0a%22Information%22%2C%2C%2202/28/01%22%2C%2214:53:40%22%2C%2C%22User%20logged%20out:%20badguy%22", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


"Information",,"02/28/01","14:50:37",,"Failed to parse val=twenty-one"

"Information",,"02/28/01","14:53:40",,"User logged out: badguy"


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cfml.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando ocurre lo siguiente:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos, ver transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


func someHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request){
r.parseForm()
name := r.FormValue("name")
logout := r.FormValue("logout")
...
if (logout){
...
} else {
log.Printf("Attempt to log out: name: %s logout: %s", name, logout)
}
}


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para logout y pudo crear un usuario con nombre "admin", se registrará la siguiente entrada:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado es capaz de crear un nombre de usuario "admin+logout:+1+++++++++++++++++++++++", se registrará la siguiente entrada:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: 1 logout: twenty-one
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


...
String val = request.getParameter("val");
try {
int value = Integer.parseInt(val);
}
catch (NumberFormatException nfe) {
log.info("Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.

Algunos piensan que en el mundo de las plataformas móviles, las vulnerabilidades de las aplicaciones web clásicas como la falsificación de registros no tienen ningún sentido: ¿por qué se atacaría un usuario a sí mismo? Sin embargo, tenga en cuenta que la esencia de las plataformas móviles consiste en aplicaciones que se descargan desde varias fuentes y se ejecutan junto con otras en el mismo dispositivo. La probabilidad de ejecutar un malware junto a una aplicación de banca es bastante alta, de modo que se necesita expandir la superficie expuesta a ataques de las aplicaciones móviles para que incluyan las comunicaciones entre procesos.

Ejemplo 2: el siguiente código adapta el Example 1 a la plataforma Android.


...
String val = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("val");
try {
int value = Integer.parseInt();
}
catch (NumberFormatException nfe) {
Log.e(TAG, "Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] IDS03-J. Do not log unsanitized user input CERT
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


var cp = require('child_process');
var http = require('http');
var url = require('url');

function listener(request, response){
var val = url.parse(request.url, true)['query']['val'];
if (isNaN(val)){
console.log("INFO: Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...
}
...
http.createServer(listener).listen(8080);
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val = twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.log_forging
Abstract
La función identificada escribe la entrada del usuario sin validar en el registro. Un usuario malintencionado podría aprovechar las ventajas de este comportamiento para falsificar las entradas del registro o insertar contenido malintencionado en el registro.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. En función de la naturaleza de la aplicación, los archivos de registro se pueden revisar manualmente según sea necesario o analizar automáticamente de forma selectiva mediante herramientas que buscan en los registros tendencias o puntos de datos importantes.

El análisis de los archivos de registro puede verse entorpecido o las conclusiones basadas en los datos de registro pueden ser incorrectas si se permite a un usuario malintencionado proporcionar datos en la aplicación que se registran posteriormente de forma exacta. Un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el registro incluyendo caracteres de separador de entradas de registro en los datos. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor caso, un usuario malintencionado introduce código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovecha una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento de registros [2].

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código de una secuencia de comandos CGI acepta una cadena enviada por el usuario e intenta convertirla en el valor de entero largo que representa. Si el valor no se analiza como un entero, su valor se registra con un mensaje de error que indica lo sucedido.


long value = strtol(val, &endPtr, 10);
if (*endPtr != '\0')
NSLog("Illegal value = %s",val);
...



Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one\n\nINFO: User logged out=evil", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=evil


Claramente, el atacante puede utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias. Para que un ataque de falsificación de registro de este tipo sea eficaz, el atacante debe identificar primero formatos de entrada de registro válidos, pero esto a menudo se puede realizar mediante pérdidas de información del sistema en la aplicación de destino.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.objc.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


<?php
$name =$_GET['name'];
...
$logout =$_GET['logout'];

if(is_numeric($logout))
{
...
}
else
{
trigger_error("Attempt to log out: name: $name logout: $val");
}
?>


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para logout y pudo crear un usuario con nombre "admin", se registrará la siguiente entrada:


PHP Notice: Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado es capaz de crear un nombre de usuario "admin+logout:+1+++++++++++++++++++++++", se registrará la siguiente entrada:


PHP Notice: Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: 1 logout: twenty-one
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


name = req.field('name')
...
logout = req.field('logout')

if (logout):
...
else:
logger.error("Attempt to log out: name: %s logout: %s" % (name,logout))


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para logout y pudo crear un usuario con nombre "admin", se registrará la siguiente entrada:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado es capaz de crear un nombre de usuario "admin+logout:+1+++++++++++++++++++++++", se registrará la siguiente entrada:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: 1 logout: twenty-one
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


...
val = req['val']
unless val.respond_to?(:to_int)
logger.info("Failed to parse val")
logger.info(val)
end
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val
INFO: twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val
INFO: twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.log_forging
Abstract
La función identificada escribe la entrada del usuario sin validar en el registro. Un usuario malintencionado podría aprovechar las ventajas de este comportamiento para falsificar las entradas del registro o insertar contenido malintencionado en el registro.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. En función de la naturaleza de la aplicación, los archivos de registro se pueden revisar manualmente según sea necesario o analizar automáticamente de forma selectiva mediante herramientas que buscan en los registros tendencias o puntos de datos importantes.

El análisis de los archivos de registro puede verse entorpecido o las conclusiones basadas en los datos de registro pueden ser incorrectas si se permite a un usuario malintencionado proporcionar datos en la aplicación que se registran posteriormente de forma exacta. Un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el registro incluyendo caracteres de separador de entradas de registro en los datos. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor caso, un usuario malintencionado introduce código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovecha una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento de registros [2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código acepta una cadena enviada por el usuario e intenta convertirla en el valor de entero que representa. Si el valor no se analiza como un entero, su valor se registra con un mensaje de error que indica lo sucedido.


...
let num = Int(param)
if num == nil {
NSLog("Illegal value = %@", param)
}
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Illegal value = twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one\n\nINFO: User logged out=evil", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=evil


Claramente, el atacante puede utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias. Para que un ataque de falsificación de registro de este tipo sea eficaz, el atacante debe identificar primero formatos de entrada de registro válidos, pero esto a menudo se puede realizar mediante pérdidas de información del sistema en la aplicación de destino.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


...
Dim Val As Variant
Dim Value As Integer
Set Val = Request.Form("val")
If IsNumeric(Val) Then
Set Value = Val
Else
App.EventLog "Failed to parse val=" & Val, 1
End If
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


Failed to parse val=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0a+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


Failed to parse val=twenty-one

User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.vb.log_forging
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando ocurre lo siguiente:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.



2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.



Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un atacante puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro [2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente punto final REST intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


@HttpGet
global static void doGet() {
RestRequest req = RestContext.request;
String val = req.params.get('val');
try {
Integer i = Integer.valueOf(val);
...
} catch (TypeException e) {
System.Debug(LoggingLevel.INFO, 'Failed to parse val: '+val);
}
}


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


Failed to parse val: twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un atacante envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aUser+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


Failed to parse val: twenty-one

User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar entradas de registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.apex.log_forging__debug_
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation

Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


...
String val = request.Params["val"];
try {
int value = Int.Parse(val);
}
catch (FormatException fe) {
log.Info("Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un atacante envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.

Algunos piensan que en el mundo de las plataformas móviles, las vulnerabilidades de las aplicaciones web clásicas como la falsificación de registros no tienen ningún sentido: ¿por qué se atacaría un usuario a sí mismo? Sin embargo, tenga en cuenta que la esencia de las plataformas móviles consiste en aplicaciones que se descargan desde varias fuentes y se ejecutan junto con otras en el mismo dispositivo. La probabilidad de ejecutar un malware junto a una aplicación de banca es bastante alta, de modo que se necesita expandir la superficie expuesta a ataques de las aplicaciones móviles para que incluyan las comunicaciones entre procesos.

Ejemplo 2: el siguiente código adapta el Example 1 a la plataforma Android.


...
String val = this.Intent.Extras.GetString("val");
try {
int value = Int.Parse(val);
}
catch (FormatException fe) {
Log.E(TAG, "Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] IDS03-J. Do not log unsanitized user input CERT
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.log_forging__debug_
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando ocurre lo siguiente:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar de forma manual según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registran literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un atacante puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación una entrada que incluya caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Un atacante puede utilizar archivos de registro falsificados o dañados de otro modo para cubrir sus pistas o incluso para implicar a otra parte en el acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un atacante puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro [2].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error para indicar lo que ocurrió.


...
var idValue string

idValue = req.URL.Query().Get("id")
num, err := strconv.Atoi(idValue)

if err != nil {
sysLog.Debug("Failed to parse value: " + idValue)
}
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena “twenty-one” para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un atacante envía la cadena “twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy”, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar entradas del registro arbitrarias.

References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] IDS03-J. Do not log unsanitized user input CERT
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.log_forging__debug
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


...
String val = request.getParameter("val");
try {
int value = Integer.parseInt(val);
}
catch (NumberFormatException nfe) {
log.info("Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.

Algunos piensan que en el mundo de las plataformas móviles, las vulnerabilidades de las aplicaciones web clásicas como la falsificación de registros no tienen ningún sentido: ¿por qué se atacaría un usuario a sí mismo? Sin embargo, tenga en cuenta que la esencia de las plataformas móviles consiste en aplicaciones que se descargan desde varias fuentes y se ejecutan junto con otras en el mismo dispositivo. La probabilidad de ejecutar un malware junto a una aplicación de banca es bastante alta, de modo que se necesita expandir la superficie expuesta a ataques de las aplicaciones móviles para que incluyan las comunicaciones entre procesos.

Ejemplo 2: el siguiente código adapta el Example 1 a la plataforma Android.


...
String val = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("val");
try {
int value = Integer.parseInt();
}
catch (NumberFormatException nfe) {
Log.e(TAG, "Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] IDS03-J. Do not log unsanitized user input CERT
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.log_forging__debug_
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


var cp = require('child_process');
var http = require('http');
var url = require('url');

function listener(request, response){
var val = url.parse(request.url, true)['query']['val'];
if (isNaN(val)){
console.error("INFO: Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...
}
...
http.createServer(listener).listen(8080);
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.log_forging__debug_
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


...
val = request.GET["val"]
try:
int_value = int(val)
except:
logger.debug("Failed to parse val = " + val)
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.log_forging__debug_
Abstract
Si se escribe una entrada del usuario sin validar en los archivos de registro se puede permitir que un atacante falsifique las entradas del registro o que inserte contenido malintencionado en los registros.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de falsificación del registro se producen cuando:

1. Los datos entran en una aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se escriben en una aplicación o un archivo de registro del sistema.

Las aplicaciones normalmente utilizan los archivos de registro para almacenar un historial de sucesos o transacciones para su revisión posterior, la recopilación de estadísticas o la depuración. Dependiendo de la naturaleza de la aplicación, la tarea de revisar los archivos de registro se puede realizar manualmente según sea necesario o automatizar con una herramienta que obtenga automáticamente los registros de eventos importantes o la información de tendencias.

La interpretación de los archivos de registro se puede impedir o dirigir de manera incorrecta si un usuario malintencionado puede suministrar datos a la aplicación que posteriormente se registra literalmente. En el caso más benigno, un usuario malintencionado puede insertar entradas falsas en el archivo de registro proporcionando a la aplicación la entrada que incluya los caracteres apropiados. Si el archivo de registro se procesa automáticamente, el atacante puede inutilizar el archivo dañando el formato de este o con una inyección de caracteres inesperados. Un ataque más sutil puede implicar sesgar las estadísticas del archivo de registro. Los archivos de registro falsificados o de otro modo dañados, se pueden utilizar para cubrir las pistas de un usuario malintencionado o incluso para implicar a otra parte encargada de un acto malintencionado [1]. En el peor de los casos, un usuario malintencionado puede inyectar código u otros comandos en el archivo de registro y aprovechar una vulnerabilidad de la utilidad de procesamiento del registro[2].

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código de aplicación web intenta leer un valor entero de un objeto de solicitud. Si el valor no se puede analizar como un entero, se registra la información con un mensaje de error que indica qué ha ocurrido.


...
val = req['val']
unless val.respond_to?(:to_int)
logger.debug("Failed to parse val")
logger.debug(val)
end
...


Si un usuario envía la cadena "twenty-one" para val, se registrará la entrada siguiente:


DEBUG: Failed to parse val
DEBUG: twenty-one


Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado envía la cadena "twenty-one%0a%DEBUG:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", se registrará la entrada siguiente:


DEBUG: Failed to parse val
DEBUG: twenty-one

DEBUG: User logged out=badguy


Claramente, los atacantes pueden utilizar este mismo mecanismo para insertar las entradas del registro arbitrarias.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, 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
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.log_forging__debug_
Abstract
La ejecución de comandos IMAP procedentes de un origen que no es de confianza puede provocar que el servidor IMAP ejecute comandos malintencionados en nombre de un usuario malintencionado.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de comandos IMAP se producen cuando un atacante puede influir en los comandos enviados a un servidor de correo IMAP.

1. Los datos entran en la aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se utilizan como una cadena o como parte de esta representando un comando que la aplicación ejecuta.

3. Al ejecutar el comando IMAP, el usuario malintencionado es capaz de ordenar al servidor que lleve a cabo acciones malintencionadas, como enviar correo no deseado.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza un parámetro de solicitud HTTP para diseñar un comando CREATE que se envía al servidor IMAP. Un atacante puede utilizar este parámetro para modificar el comando enviado al servidor e inyectar nuevos comandos utilizando caracteres CRLF.


...
final String foldername = request.getParameter("folder");
IMAPFolder folder = (IMAPFolder) store.getFolder("INBOX");
...
folder.doCommand(new IMAPFolder.ProtocolCommand() {
@Override
public Object doCommand(IMAPProtocol imapProtocol) throws ProtocolException {
try {
imapProtocol.simpleCommand("CREATE " + foldername, null);
} catch (Exception e) {
// Handle Exception
}
return null;
}
});
...
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [13] CWE ID 077
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.java.mail_command_injection_imap
Abstract
La ejecución de comandos POP3 procedentes de un origen que no es de confianza puede provocar que el servidor POP3 ejecute comandos malintencionados en nombre de un usuario malintencionado.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de comandos POP3 se producen cuando un atacante puede influir en los comandos enviados a un servidor de correo POP3.

1. Los datos entran en la aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se utilizan como una cadena o como parte de esta representando un comando que la aplicación ejecuta.

3. Al ejecutar el comando POP3, el usuario malintencionado es capaz de ordenar al servidor que lleve a cabo acciones malintencionadas, como enviar correo no deseado.

Example 1: el siguiente código utiliza un parámetro de solicitud HTTP para diseñar un comando USER y PASS que se envía al servidor POP3. Un atacante puede utilizar este parámetro para modificar el comando enviado al servidor e inyectar nuevos comandos utilizando caracteres CRLF.


...
String username = request.getParameter("username");
String password = request.getParameter("password");
...
POP3SClient pop3 = new POP3SClient(proto, false);
pop3.login(username, password)
...
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [13] CWE ID 077
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.java.mail_command_injection_pop3
Abstract
La ejecución de comandos SMTP desde una fuente que no es de confianza puede hacer que el servidor SMTP ejecute comandos maliciosos en nombre de un atacante.
Explanation
Este tipo de vulnerabilidades puede ocurrir cuando: Las vulnerabilidades de Command Injection de SMTP ocurren cuando un atacante puede influir en los comandos enviados a un servidor de correo SMTP.

1. Los datos entran en la aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se utilizan como una cadena, o como parte de ella, que representa un comando que la aplicación ejecuta.

3. Al ejecutar el comando SMTP, el atacante puede indicarle al servidor que lleve a cabo acciones maliciosas, como enviar spam.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza un parámetro de solicitud HTTP para crear un comando VRFY que se envía al servidor SMTP. Un atacante podría usar este parámetro para modificar el comando enviado al servidor e inyectar nuevos comandos usando caracteres CRLF.


...
c, err := smtp.Dial(x)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
user := request.FormValue("USER")
c.Verify(user)
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [13] CWE ID 077
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] 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
[33] 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
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.golang.mail_command_injection_smtp
Abstract
La ejecución de comandos SMTP desde un origen que no es de confianza puede provocar que el servidor SMTP ejecute comandos malintencionados en nombre de un usuario malintencionado.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de comandos SMTP se producen cuando un atacante puede influir en los comandos enviados a un servidor de correo SMTP.

1. Los datos entran en la aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se utilizan como una cadena o como parte de esta representando un comando que la aplicación ejecuta.

3. Al ejecutar el comando SMTP, el usuario malintencionado es capaz de ordenar al servidor que lleve a cabo acciones malintencionadas, como enviar correo no deseado.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza un parámetro de solicitud HTTP para diseñar un comando VRFY que se envía al servidor SMTP. Un atacante puede utilizar este parámetro para modificar el comando enviado al servidor e inyectar nuevos comandos utilizando caracteres CRLF.


...
String user = request.getParameter("user");
SMTPSSLTransport transport = new SMTPSSLTransport(session,new URLName(Utilities.getProperty("smtp.server")));
transport.connect(Utilities.getProperty("smtp.server"), username, password);
transport.simpleCommand("VRFY " + user);
...
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [13] CWE ID 077
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.java.mail_command_injection_smtp
Abstract
La ejecución de comandos SMTP desde un origen que no es de confianza puede provocar que el servidor SMTP ejecute comandos malintencionados en nombre de un usuario malintencionado.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de comandos SMTP se producen cuando un atacante puede influir en los comandos enviados a un servidor de correo SMTP.

1. Los datos entran en la aplicación desde una fuente no confiable.

2. Los datos se utilizan como una cadena o como parte de esta representando un comando que la aplicación ejecuta.

3. Al ejecutar el comando SMTP, el usuario malintencionado es capaz de ordenar al servidor que lleve a cabo acciones malintencionadas, como enviar correo no deseado.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza un parámetro de solicitud HTTP para diseñar un comando VRFY que se envía al servidor SMTP. Un atacante puede utilizar este parámetro para modificar el comando enviado al servidor e inyectar nuevos comandos utilizando caracteres CRLF.


...
user = request.GET['user']
session = smtplib.SMTP(smtp_server, smtp_tls_port)
session.ehlo()
session.starttls()
session.login(username, password)
session.docmd("VRFY", user)
...
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [13] CWE ID 077
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] 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
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.python.mail_command_injection_smtp
Abstract
El enlazador de estructuras utilizado para enlazar los parámetros de solicitud HTTP a la clase de modelos no se ha configurado de forma explícita para permitir o no permitir determinados atributos.
Explanation
Para facilitar el desarrollo y aumento de la productividad, la mayoría de las estructuras modernas permiten que se pueda crear una instancia de un objeto automáticamente y rellenar con los parámetros de solicitud HTTP aquellos nombres que coincidan con un atributo de la clase para enlazarlos. Crear instancias y rellenar objetos automáticamente acelera el desarrollo pero puede ocasionar problemas graves si se implementa sin cuidado. Cualquier atributo de las clases enlazadas o clases anidadas se enlazará automáticamente a los parámetros de solicitud HTTP. Por lo tanto, los usuarios malintencionados podrán asignar un valor a cualquier atributo de las clases enlazadas o anidadas, incluso aunque no estén expuestas al cliente a través de formularios web o contratos API.

Ejemplo 1: Sin configuración adicional, el siguiente método de controlador ASP.NET MVC enlazará los parámetros de solicitud HTTP a cualquier atributo de las clases RegisterModel o Details:


public ActionResult Register(RegisterModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
try
{
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Home");
}
catch (MembershipCreateUserException e)
{
ModelState.AddModelError("", "");
}
}
return View(model);
}


Donde la clase RegisterModel se define como:


public class RegisterModel
{
[BindRequired]
[Display(Name = "User name")]
public string UserName { get; set; }

[BindRequired]
[DataType(DataType.Password)]
[Display(Name = "Password")]
public string Password { get; set; }

[DataType(DataType.Password)]
[Display(Name = "Confirm password")]
public string ConfirmPassword { get; set; }

public Details Details { get; set; }

public RegisterModel()
{
Details = new Details();
}
}


y la clase Details se define como:


public class Details
{
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
...
}
Ejemplo 2: Al utilizar TryUpdateModel() o UpdateModel() en ASP.NET MVC o aplicaciones web API, el enlazador de modelos intentará enlazar automáticamente todos los parámetros de solicitud HTTP de forma predeterminada:


public ViewResult Register()
{
var model = new RegisterModel();
TryUpdateModel<RegisterModel>(model);
return View("detail", model);
}
Ejemplo 3: En las aplicaciones de formulario web ASP.NET, el enlazador de modelos intentará enlazar automáticamente todos los parámetros de solicitud HTTP cuando se utilice TryUpdateModel() o UpdateModel() con la interfaz IValueProvider.

Employee emp = new Employee();
TryUpdateModel(emp, new System.Web.ModelBinding.FormValueProvider(ModelBindingExecutionContext));
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
db.SaveChanges();
}


y la clase Employee se define como:


public class Employee
{
public Employee()
{
IsAdmin = false;
IsManager = false;
}
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public bool IsManager { get; set; }
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
}
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_insecure_binder_configuration
Abstract
El enlazador de marco utilizado para enlazar los parámetros de solicitud HTTP a la clase de modelo no se ha configurado explícitamente para permitir o no permitir determinados atributos.
Explanation
Para facilitar el desarrollo y aumentar la productividad, la mayoría de los marcos modernos permiten crear una instancia de un objeto y rellenar ese objeto automáticamente con los parámetros de solicitud HTTP cuyos nombres coincidan con un atributo de la clase `que se va a enlazar. Crear instancias de objetos y rellenar los objetos automáticamente aceleran el desarrollo, pero pueden generar problemas graves si se implementan sin precaución. Cualquier atributo de las clases enlazadas, o clases anidadas, se enlazará automáticamente a los parámetros de solicitud HTTP. Por lo tanto, los usuarios malintencionados podrían asignar un valor a cualquier atributo de las clases enlazadas o anidadas, incluso si no están expuestas al cliente a través de formularios web o contratos API.

Ejemplo 1: Mediante el uso de Spring WebFlow sin configuración adicional, la siguiente acción enlazará los parámetros de solicitud HTTP a cualquier atributo de la clase Booking:


<view-state id="enterBookingDetails" model="booking">
<on-render>
<render fragments="body" />
</on-render>
<transition on="proceed" to="reviewBooking">
</transition>
<transition on="cancel" to="cancel" bind="false" />
</view-state>


Donde la clase Booking se define como:


public class Booking implements Serializable {
private Long id;
private User user;
private Hotel hotel;
private Date checkinDate;
private Date checkoutDate;
private String creditCard;
private String creditCardName;
private int creditCardExpiryMonth;
private int creditCardExpiryYear;
private boolean smoking;
private int beds;
private Set<Amenity> amenities;

// Public Getters and Setters
...
}
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Pivotal Spring MVC Known Vulnerabilities and Issues
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.config.java.mass_assignment_insecure_binder_configuration
Abstract
Cuando se permite rellenar automáticamente entidades de base de datos persistentes mediante parámetros de solicitud, se permite a un atacante crear registros no intencionados en entidades de asociación o actualizar campos no intencionados en el objeto de la entidad.
Explanation
Los objetos modelo son una representación orientada a objetos de entidades de base de datos. Proporcionan los métodos adecuados para cargar, almacenar, actualizar y eliminar entidades de base de datos asociadas.
Hibernate, Microsoft .NET Entity Framework y LINQ son ejemplos de marcos de trabajo de asignación relacional de objetos (ORM) que le ayudan a crear objetos modelo respaldados por bases de datos.

Many web frameworks strive to make life easier for developers by Muchos marcos de trabajo web tratan de facilitarles la vida a los desarrolladores proporcionando un mecanismo de enlace para los parámetros de solicitudes en objetos enlazados con solicitudes basado en la asociación de nombres de parámetros de solicitud con nombres de atributos de objeto modelo (basado en métodos públicos de asociación de getter y setter).

Si una aplicación utiliza clases ORM como objetos enlazados con solicitudes, es probable que un parámetro de solicitud pueda modificar cualquier campo en los objetos modelo correspondientes y cualquier campo anidado de un atributo de objeto.

Ejemplo 1: el Order, Customer y Profile son clases persistentes de Microsoft .NET Entity.

public class Order {
public string ordered { get; set; }
public List<LineItem> LineItems { get; set; }
pubilc virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
...
}
public class Customer {
public int CustomerId { get; set; }
...
public virtual Profile Profile { get; set; }
...
}
public class Profile {
public int profileId { get; set; }
public string username { get; set; }
public string password { get; set; }
...
}
OrderController es la clase controlador MVC de ASP.NET que trata la solicitud:


public class OrderController : Controller{
StoreEntities db = new StoreEntities();
...

public String updateOrder(Order order) {
...
db.Orders.Add(order);
db.SaveChanges();
}
}

Dado que las clases de entidades modelo se enlazan de forma automática a las solicitudes, un atacante podría valerse de esta vulnerabilidad para actualizar la contraseña de otro usuario agregando los siguientes parámetros a la solicitud: "http://www.yourcorp.com/webApp/updateOrder?order.customer.profile.profileId=1234&order.customer.profile.password=urpowned"
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_request_parameters_bound_into_persisted_objects
Abstract
Cuando se permite rellenar automáticamente entidades de base de datos persistentes mediante parámetros de solicitud, se permite a un usuario malintencionado crear registros no intencionados en entidades de asociación o actualizar campos no intencionados en el objeto de la entidad.
Explanation
Los objetos persistentes están enlazados a la base de datos subyacente y se actualizan automáticamente mediante la estructura de persistencia como, por ejemplo, Hibernate o JPA. Al permitir que estos objetos se enlacen dinámicamente a la solicitud por medio de Spring MVC, un usuario podría insertar valores inesperados en la base de datos proporcionando parámetros de solicitud adicionales.
Ejemplo 1: el Order, Customer y Profile son clases Hibernate persistentes.

public class Order {
String ordered;
List lineItems;
Customer cust;
...
}
public class Customer {
String customerId;
...
Profile p;
...
}
public class Profile {
String profileId;
String username;
String password;
...
}
OrderController es la clase de controlador que administra la solicitud:

@Controller
public class OrderController {
...
@RequestMapping("/updateOrder")
public String updateOrder(Order order) {
...
session.save(order);
}
}

Como las clases de comandos se enlazan automáticamente a la solicitud, un atacante puede aprovechar esta vulnerabilidad para actualizar la contraseña de otro usuario agregando los siguientes parámetros a la solicitud: "http://www.yourcorp.com/webApp/updateOrder?order.customer.profile.profileId=1234&order.customer.profile.password=urpowned"
References
[1] Ryan Berg and Dinis Cruz Two Security Vulnerabilities in the Spring Framework's MVC
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.java.mass_assignment_request_parameters_bound_into_persisted_objects
Abstract
El enlazador de marco utilizado para vincular los parámetros de solicitud HTTP a la clase de modelo se basa en formateadores de entrada cuando se utiliza la anotación [FromBody].
Explanation
Para facilitar el desarrollo y aumentar la productividad, la mayoría de los marcos modernos permiten crear una instancia de un objeto y rellenar ese objeto automáticamente con los parámetros de solicitud HTTP cuyos nombres coincidan con un atributo de la clase `que se va a enlazar. Crear instancias de objetos y rellenar los objetos automáticamente aceleran el desarrollo, pero pueden generar problemas graves si se implementan sin precaución. Cualquier atributo de las clases enlazadas, o clases anidadas, se enlazará automáticamente a los parámetros de solicitud HTTP. Por lo tanto, los usuarios malintencionados podrían asignar un valor a cualquier atributo de las clases enlazadas o anidadas, incluso si no están expuestas al cliente a través de formularios web o contratos API.

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

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


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


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


public class Product
{
...
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
...
}
References
[1] Microsoft [FromBody] attribute
[2] OWASP Mass assignment
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_request_parameters_bound_via_input_formatters
Abstract
Un campo confidencial está expuesto al enlazador de modelos.
Explanation
Las estructuras modernas permiten a los desarrolladores enlazar automáticamente parámetros de solicitud de HTTP tanto de la consulta como del cuerpo de la solicitud en objetos de modelos para facilitar el desarrollo y el aumento de la productividad. Si el enlazador no está configurado correctamente para controlar qué parámetros de solicitud de HTTP están enlazados a qué atributos de modelo, un atacante puede ser capaz de abusar del proceso de enlace de modelos y establecer cualquier otro atributo que no se debería exponer al control del usuario. Este enlace es posible incluso si los atributos del modelo no aparecen en los formularios web o contratos API.

Ejemplo 1: se accede al siguiente método de controlador ASP.NET MVC (Register) desde un formulario web que pide a los usuarios que registren una cuenta proporcionando su nombre y contraseña:


public ActionResult Register(RegisterModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
try
{
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Home");
}
catch (MembershipCreateUserException e)
{
ModelState.AddModelError("", "");
}
}
return View(model);
}


Donde la clase RegisterModel se define como:


public class RegisterModel
{
[BindRequired]
[Display(Name = "User name")]
public string UserName { get; set; }

[BindRequired]
[DataType(DataType.Password)]
[Display(Name = "Password")]
public string Password { get; set; }

[DataType(DataType.Password)]
[Display(Name = "Confirm password")]
public string ConfirmPassword { get; set; }

public Details Details { get; set; }

public RegisterModel()
{
Details = new Details();
}
}


y la clase Details se define como:


public class Details
{
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
...
}


Dado el escenario del Example 1, un atacante puede ser capaz de explorar la aplicación y detectar si hay un atributo de Details en el modelo RegisterModel. Si este fuera el caso, el atacante puede entonces intentar volver a escribir los valores actuales asignados a sus atributos.
Si un atacante puede encontrar estos atributos internos y el enlazador de estructuras no está configurado correctamente para no permitir enlazar estos atributos, el atacante podría entonces registrar una cuenta de administrador enviando la siguiente solicitud:


name=John&password=****&details.is_admin=true
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Process Validation (WASC-40)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_sensitive_field_exposure
Abstract
Un campo confidencial está expuesto al enlazador de modelos.
Explanation
Los marcos modernos permiten a los desarrolladores enlazar automáticamente los parámetros de solicitud HTTP tanto de la consulta de solicitud como del cuerpo en los objetos del modelo para facilitar el desarrollo y aumentar la productividad. Si el enlazador no está configurado correctamente para controlar qué parámetros de solicitud HTTP están enlazados a qué atributos del modelo, un atacante puede abusar del proceso de enlace del modelo y establecer cualquier otro atributo que no deba exponerse al control del usuario. Este enlace es posible incluso si los atributos del modelo no aparecen en los formularios web o los contratos de API.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente elemento DynaActionForm de Struts 1 define dinámicamente un elemento ActionForm que está enlazado a las solicitudes de los usuarios. En este caso, se utiliza para registrar una cuenta proporcionando el tipo de cuenta y los detalles de un usuario:


<struts-config>
<form-beans>
<form-bean name="dynaUserForm"
type="org.apache.struts.action.DynaActionForm" >
<form-property name="type" type="java.lang.String" />
<form-property name="user" type="com.acme.common.User" />
</form-bean>
...



Si el registro se realiza correctamente, los datos del usuario se conservarán en la base de datos. La clase User se define como:


public class User {
private String name;
private String lastname;
private int age;
private Details details;

// Public Getters and Setters
...
}


Y la clase Details se define como:


public class Details {
private boolean is_admin;
private int id;
private Date login_date;

// Public Getters and Setters
...
}


Dado el escenario del Example 1, un atacante puede ser capaz de explorar la aplicación y detectar si hay un atributo de details en el modelo User. Si este fuera el caso, el atacante puede entonces intentar volver a escribir los valores actuales asignados a sus atributos.
Si un atacante puede encontrar estos atributos internos, y el enlazador del marco no está configurado correctamente para no permitir el enlace de estos atributos, entonces el atacante podría registrar una cuenta de administrador enviando la siguiente solicitud:


type=free&user.name=John&user.lastname=Smith&age=22&details.is_admin=true
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Spring Spring MVC Known Vulnerabilities and Issues
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Process Validation (WASC-40)
desc.config.java.mass_assignment_sensitive_field_exposure
Abstract
Invocar una operación de Memcached con entrada de un origen que no es de confianza podría permitir que un atacante introdujera nuevos pares de clave/valor en la caché de Memcached.
Explanation
Se producen errores de inyección de Memcached cuando:

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



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear de forma dinámica una clave o un valor de Memcached.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente crea de forma dinámica una clave de Memcached.


...
TextClient tc = (TextClient)Client.GetInstance("127.0.0.1", 11211, MemcachedFlags.TextProtocol);
tc.Open();
string id = txtID.Text;
var result = get_page_from_somewhere();
var response = Http_Response(result);
tc.Set("req-" + id, response, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1000));
tc.Close();
tc = null;
...


A continuación se muestra la operación que este código tiene la intención de ejecutar:


set req-1233 0 1000 n
<serialized_response_instance>

Donde n es la longitud de la respuesta.

Sin embargo, dado que la operación se crea de forma dinámica mediante la concatenación de un prefijo de clave constante y una cadena de entrada del usuario, un atacante podría enviar la cadena ignore 0 0 1\r\n1\r\nset injected 0 3600 10\r\n0123456789\r\nset req-, tras lo cual la operación cambiaría del modo siguiente:


set req-ignore 0 0 1
1
set injected 0 3600 10
0123456789
set req-1233 0 0 n
<serialized_response_instance>


La clave anterior agregará correctamente un nuevo par de clave/valor en la caché injected=0123456789 y los atacantes podrán dañar la caché.
References
[1] Novikov The New Page Of Injections Book: Memcached Injections
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 20
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] 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
[33] 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
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.memcached_injection
Abstract
Invocar una operación de Memcached con entrada proveniente de un origen que no es de confianza podría permitir que un usuario malintencionado introdujera nuevos pares de clave/valor en la caché de Memcached.
Explanation
Se producen errores de inyección de Memcached cuando:

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



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear de forma dinámica una clave o un valor de Memcached.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente crea de forma dinámica una clave de Memcached.


...
def store(request):
id = request.GET['id']
result = get_page_from_somewhere()
response = HttpResponse(result)
cache_time = 1800
cache.set("req-" % id, response, cache_time)
return response
...


A continuación se muestra la operación que este código tiene la intención de ejecutar:


set req-1233 0 0 n
<serialized_response_instance>


Sin embargo, dado que la operación se crea de forma dinámica mediante la concatenación de un prefijo de clave constante y una cadena de entrada del usuario, un atacante podría enviar la cadena ignore 0 0 1\r\n1\r\nset injected 0 3600 10\r\n0123456789\r\nset req-, tras lo cual la operación cambiaría del modo siguiente:


set req-ignore 0 0 1
1
set injected 0 3600 10
0123456789
set req-1233 0 0 n
<serialized_response_instance>


La clave anterior agregará correctamente un nuevo par de clave/valor en la caché injected=0123456789. En función de la carga, los usuarios malintencionados podrán dañar la caché o ejecutar código arbitrario al inyectar una carga serializada con subclases que ejecutará código arbitrario en el momento de deserialización.
References
[1] Novikov The New Page Of Injections Book: Memcached Injections
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 20
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] 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
[33] 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
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.memcached_injection
Abstract
La memoria se asigna, pero nunca se libera.
Explanation
Las pérdidas de memoria presentan dos causas habituales, que a veces se superponen:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar la memoria.

Por lo general, la mayoría de las pérdidas de memoria provocan problemas de confiabilidad pero si un atacante puede desencadenar de forma intencionada una pérdida de memoria, este puede ser capaz de iniciar un ataque de denegación de servicio (bloqueando el programa) o aprovechar otro comportamiento inesperado del programa derivado de una situación de bajo nivel de memoria [1].

Ejemplo 1: la siguiente función de C pierde un bloque de memoria asignada si la llamada a read() no devuelve el número esperado de bytes:


char* getBlock(int fd) {
char* buf = (char*) malloc(BLOCK_SIZE);
if (!buf) {
return NULL;
}
if (read(fd, buf, BLOCK_SIZE) != BLOCK_SIZE) {
return NULL;
}
return buf;
}
References
[1] J. Whittaker and H. Thompson How to Break Software Security Addison Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 401
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 21.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 18-4-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.6.1
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.memory_leak
Abstract
La memoria está asignada, pero nunca se libera.
Explanation
Las pérdidas de memoria tienen dos causas comunes que a menudo se solapan:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar la memoria.

La mayoría de pérdidas de memoria derivan en problemas generales de confiabilidad de software, pero si un atacante puede desencadenar intencionadamente una pérdida de memoria, también puede ser capaz de lanzar un ataque de denegación de servicio (bloqueando el programa) o aprovecharse de otro comportamiento inesperado del programa derivado de una situación de bajo nivel de memoria [1].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente programa de Micro Focus COBOL genera fugas de un bloque de memoria asignada si se produce un error:


CALL "CBL_ALLOC_MEM"
USING mem-pointer
BY VALUE mem-size
BY VALUE flags
RETURNING status-code
END-CALL

IF status-code NOT = 0
DISPLAY "Error!"
GOBACK
ELSE
SET ADDRESS OF mem TO mem-pointer
END-IF

PERFORM write-data
IF ws-status-code NOT = 0
DISPLAY "Error!"
GOBACK
ELSE
DISPLAY "Success!"
END-IF

CALL "CBL_FREE_MEM"
USING BY VALUE mem-pointer
RETURNING status-code
END-CALL

GOBACK
.
References
[1] J. Whittaker and H. Thompson How to Break Software Security Addison Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 401
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 21.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 18-4-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.6.1
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cobol.memory_leak
Abstract
Un objeto asigna memoria a una variable miembro y no consigue liberarla en su método dealloc().
Explanation
Las pérdidas de memoria presentan dos causas habituales, que a veces se superponen:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar la memoria.

Por lo general, la mayoría de las pérdidas de memoria provocan problemas de confiabilidad pero si un atacante puede desencadenar de forma intencionada una pérdida de memoria, este puede ser capaz de iniciar un ataque de denegación de servicio (bloqueando el programa) o aprovechar otro comportamiento inesperado del programa derivado de una situación de bajo nivel de memoria [1].

Ejemplo 1: El objeto de Objective-C asigna memoria al método init() pero no consigue liberarla en el método deallocate(), por lo que se produce una falta de memoria:


- (void)init
{
myVar = [NSString alloc] init];
...
}

- (void)dealloc
{
[otherVar release];
}
References
[1] J. Whittaker and H. Thompson How to Break Software Security Addison Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 401
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 21.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 18-4-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.6.1
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.structural.objc.memory_leak
Abstract
El programa cambia el tamaño de un bloque de memoria asignada. Si el cambio de tamaño falla, el bloque original se perderá.
Explanation
Las pérdidas de memoria presentan dos causas habituales, que a veces se superponen:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar la memoria.

Por lo general, la mayoría de las pérdidas de memoria provocan problemas de confiabilidad pero si un atacante puede desencadenar de forma intencionada una pérdida de memoria, este puede ser capaz de iniciar un ataque de denegación de servicio (bloqueando el programa) o aprovechar otro comportamiento inesperado del programa derivado de una situación de bajo nivel de memoria [1].

Ejemplo 1: la siguiente función C pierde un bloque de memoria asignada si la llamada para realloc() no logra cambiar el tamaño de la asignación original.


char* getBlocks(int fd) {
int amt;
int request = BLOCK_SIZE;
char* buf = (char*) malloc(BLOCK_SIZE + 1);
if (!buf) {
goto ERR;
}
amt = read(fd, buf, request);
while ((amt % BLOCK_SIZE) != 0) {
if (amt < request) {
goto ERR;
}
request = request + BLOCK_SIZE;
buf = realloc(buf, request);
if (!buf) {
goto ERR;
}
amt = read(fd, buf, request);
}

return buf;

ERR:
if (buf) {
free(buf);
}
return NULL;
}
References
[1] J. Whittaker and H. Thompson How to Break Software Security Addison Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 401
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 21.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 18-4-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.6.1
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[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.controlflow.cpp.memory_leak_reallocation
Abstract
El programa cambia el tamaño de un bloque de memoria asignada. Si no se puede cambiar el tamaño, se generarán fugas del bloque original.
Explanation
Las pérdidas de memoria tienen dos causas comunes que a menudo se solapan:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar la memoria.

La mayoría de pérdidas de memoria derivan en problemas generales de confiabilidad de software, pero si un atacante puede desencadenar intencionadamente una pérdida de memoria, también puede ser capaz de lanzar un ataque de denegación de servicio (bloqueando el programa) o aprovecharse de otro comportamiento inesperado del programa derivado de una situación de bajo nivel de memoria [1].

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente programa de Micro Focus COBOL genera fugas de un bloque de memoria asignada si la llamada a realloc() no puede cambiar el tamaño de la asignación original.


CALL "malloc" USING
BY VALUE mem-size
RETURNING mem-pointer
END-CALL

ADD 1000 TO mem-size

CALL "realloc" USING
BY VALUE mem-pointer
BY VALUE mem-size
RETURNING mem-pointer
END-CALL

IF mem-pointer <> null
CALL "free" USING
BY VALUE mem-pointer
END-CALL
END-IF
References
[1] J. Whittaker and H. Thompson How to Break Software Security Addison Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 401
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 21.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 18-4-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.6.1
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[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.controlflow.cobol.memory_leak_reallocation
Abstract
Es posible que el programa elimine la referencia de un puntero nulo porque no comprueba el valor de devolución de una función que puede que devuelva un valor null.
Explanation
Prácticamente cada ataque grave a un sistema de software comienza con la infracción de los supuestos del programador. Después del ataque, las suposiciones del programador parecen débiles y mal fundadas, pero antes de un ataque muchos programadores defenderían sus suposiciones mucho más allá del final de la hora del almuerzo.

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Este argumento pasa por alto tres consideraciones importantes:

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

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

- El programador ha perdido la oportunidad de registrar la información de diagnóstico. ¿La llamada a malloc() presentó errores debido a que req_size era demasiado grande o a que se estaban administrando demasiadas solicitudes al mismo tiempo? ¿O el error lo provocó una pérdida de memoria que se acumuló a lo largo de un periodo? Si no se administra el error, es imposible saberlo.
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 253, CWE ID 690
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 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.controlflow.cpp.missing_check_against_null
Abstract
Es posible que el programa elimine la referencia de un puntero nulo porque no comprueba el valor de devolución de una función que puede que devuelva un valor null.
Explanation
Prácticamente cada ataque grave a un sistema de software comienza con la infracción de los supuestos del programador. Después del ataque, las suposiciones del programador parecen débiles y mal fundadas, pero antes de un ataque muchos programadores defenderían sus suposiciones mucho más allá del final de la hora del almuerzo.

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


public boolean equals(Object object)
{
return (toString().equals(object.toString()));
}
References
[1] MET10-J. Follow the general contract when implementing the compareTo() method CERT
[2] MET08-J. Preserve the equality contract when overriding the equals() method CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 684
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
desc.controlflow.java.missing_check_for_null_parameter
Abstract
La aplicación no limita los datos del formulario.
Explanation
La aplicación no puede definir límites ni restricciones para el tipo de datos recibidos desde un formulario web. Se recomienda definir un conjunto de restricciones para los datos recibidos, como la longitud máxima y mínima.


Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente define un formulario, pero no define las restricciones de los datos:


def form = Form(
mapping(
"name" -> text,
"age" -> number
)(UserData.apply)(UserData.unapply)
)
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 108
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.structural.scala.missing_form_field_constraints
Abstract
La aplicación no realiza ninguna validación de los datos del formulario.
Explanation
La aplicación no valida el tipo de datos recibidos de un formulario web. Es recomendable validar que los datos recibidos satisfagan los requisitos definidos para los datos esperados.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código define un elemento FormAction de Spring WebFlow que no valida los datos contra los requisitos esperados:


<bean id="customerCriteriaAction" class="org.springframework.webflow.action.FormAction">
<property name="formObjectClass"
value="com.acme.domain.CustomerCriteria" />
<property name="propertyEditorRegistrar">
<bean
class="com.acme.web.PropertyEditors" />
</property>
</bean>
Ejemplo 2: El siguiente código define un estado de acción de Spring WebFlow que no valida los datos con respecto a los requisitos esperados:


<action-state>
<action bean="transferMoneyAction" method="bind" />
</action-state>
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 108
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.config.java.missing_form_field_validation
Abstract
La aplicación no realiza ninguna validación de los datos del formulario.
Explanation
La aplicación no puede validar el tipo de datos recibidos desde un formulario web. Se recomienda comprobar que los datos recibidos satisfagan los requisitos definidos para los datos esperados.


Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente define un formulario, pero no valida los datos según los requisitos esperados:


def form = Form(
mapping(
"name" -> text,
"age" -> number
)(UserData.apply)(UserData.unapply)
)
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 108
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.structural.scala.missing_form_field_validation
Abstract
Una clase clonable que realiza esta comprobación en su constructor tiene que realizar la misma comprobación en su método clone().
Explanation
Cuando se invoca un método clone() de la clase, no se invoca el constructor para la clase que se está clonando. Así pues, si hay una comprobación SecurityManager o AccessController en el constructor de una clase clonable, debe estar presente la misma comprobación en el método de clonación de la clase. De no ser así, la comprobación de seguridad se derivará cuando se clone la clase.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente contiene una comprobación SecurityManager en el constructor, pero no en el método clone().

public class BadSecurityCheck implements Cloneable {

private int id;

public BadSecurityCheck() {
SecurityManager sm = System.getSecurityManager();
if (sm != null) {
sm.checkPermission(new BadPermission("BadSecurityCheck"));
}
id = 1;
}

public Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException {
BadSecurityCheck bsm = (BadSecurityCheck)super.clone();
return null;
}
}
References
[1] "Secure Coding Guidelines for the Java Programming Language, version 2.0" Sun Microsystems, Inc. [Online]. [Accessed: Aug. 30, 2007]. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[2] C. Lai Java Insecurity: Accounting for Subtleties That Can Compromise Code
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 358
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002165
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, CM-7 Least Functionality
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
desc.structural.java.missing_securitymanager_check_cloneable
Abstract
Una clase serializable que realiza una comprobación SecurityManager en su constructor tiene que realizar la misma comprobación en sus métodos readObject() y readObjectNoData.
Explanation
Cuando se invoca el método readObject() de una clase serializable, no se invoca el constructor para la clase que se está deserializando. Así pues, si hay una comprobación SecurityManager en el constructor de una clase serializable, también debe estar presente la misma comprobación SecurityManager en los métodos readObject() y readObjectNoData(). De no ser así, la comprobación de seguridad se derivará cuando la clase se deserialice.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente contiene una comprobación SecurityManager en el constructor, pero no en los métodos readObject() y readObjectNoData().

public class BadSecurityCheck implements Serializable {

private int id;

public BadSecurityCheck() {
SecurityManager sm = System.getSecurityManager();
if (sm != null) {
sm.checkPermission(new BadPermission("BadSecurityCheck"));
}
id = 1;
}

public void readObject(ObjectInputStream in) throws ClassNotFoundException, IOException {
in.defaultReadObject();
}

public void readObjectNoData(ObjectInputStream in) throws ClassNotFoundException, IOException {
in.defaultReadObject();
}
}
References
[1] "Secure Coding Guidelines for the Java Programming Language, version 2.0" Sun Microsystems, Inc. [Online]. [Accessed: Aug. 30, 2007]. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[2] C. Lai Java Insecurity: Accounting for Subtleties That Can Compromise Code
[3] SERIAL-4: Duplicate the SecurityManager checks enforced in a class during serialization and deserialization Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 358
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002165
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, CM-7 Least Functionality
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
desc.structural.java.missing_securitymanager_check_serializable