1464 elementos encontrados
Debilidades
Abstract
Si no se consigue habilitar la validación a la hora de analizar XML, el atacante tendrá la oportunidad de proporcionar entradas maliciosas.
Explanation
Los ataques con más éxito comienzan con una violación de los supuestos del programador. Si se acepta un documento XML sin validarlo con respecto a un esquema XML o DTD, el programador deja una puerta abierta para que los atacantes proporcionen entradas inesperadas, inadmisibles o maliciosas. Un analizador XML no puede validar todos los aspectos del contenido de un documento; no puede comprender la semántica completa de los datos. No obstante, puede realizar un trabajo completo y exhaustivo de comprobación de la estructura del documento y, así, garantizar que el código que procesa el documento que contiene cuenta con el formato correcto.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 112
[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-001094, CCI-001310, CCI-002385, 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 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, 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 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.3.1 SOAP Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[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 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, 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 - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.controlflow.abap.missing_xml_validation
Abstract
Si no se consigue habilitar la validación a la hora de analizar XML, el atacante tendrá la oportunidad de proporcionar entradas maliciosas.
Explanation
Los ataques con más éxito comienzan con una violación de los supuestos del programador. Si se acepta un documento XML sin validarlo con respecto a un esquema XML o DTD, el programador deja una puerta abierta para que los atacantes proporcionen entradas inesperadas, inadmisibles o maliciosas. Un analizador XML no puede validar todos los aspectos del contenido de un documento; no puede comprender la semántica completa de los datos. No obstante, puede realizar un trabajo completo y exhaustivo de comprobación de la estructura del documento y, así, garantizar que el código que procesa el documento que contiene cuenta con el formato correcto.
References
[1] XmlReader Class Microsoft
[2] XmlReaderSettings Class Microsoft
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 112
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310, CCI-002385, CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[16] 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), 13.3.1 SOAP Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[36] 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
[37] 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
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.controlflow.dotnet.missing_xml_validation
Abstract
Si no se consigue habilitar la validación a la hora de analizar XML, el atacante tendrá la oportunidad de proporcionar entradas maliciosas.
Explanation
Los ataques con más éxito comienzan con una violación de los supuestos del programador. Si se acepta un documento XML sin validarlo con respecto a un esquema XML o DTD, el programador deja una puerta abierta para que los atacantes proporcionen entradas inesperadas, inadmisibles o maliciosas. Un analizador XML no puede validar todos los aspectos del contenido de un documento; no puede comprender la semántica completa de los datos. No obstante, puede realizar un trabajo completo y exhaustivo de comprobación de la estructura del documento y, así, garantizar que el código que procesa el documento que contiene cuenta con el formato correcto.
References
[1] Xerces parser features The Apache Foundation
[2] XML Validation in J2SE 1.5 Sun Microsystems
[3] Axis User's Guide Apache Software Foundation
[4] IDS16-J. Prevent XML Injection CERT
[5] IDS17-J. Prevent XML External Entity Attacks CERT
[6] INJECT-3: XML and HTML generation requires care Oracle
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 112
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310, CCI-002385, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] 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), 13.3.1 SOAP Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[40] 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
[41] 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
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.controlflow.java.missing_xml_validation
Abstract
Si no se consigue habilitar la validación a la hora de analizar XML, el atacante tendrá la oportunidad de proporcionar entradas maliciosas.
Explanation
Los ataques con más éxito comienzan con una violación de los supuestos del programador. Si se acepta un documento XML sin validarlo con respecto a un esquema XML o DTD, el programador deja una puerta abierta para que los atacantes proporcionen entradas inesperadas, inadmisibles o maliciosas. Un analizador XML no puede validar todos los aspectos del contenido de un documento; no puede comprender la semántica completa de los datos. No obstante, puede realizar un trabajo completo y exhaustivo de comprobación de la estructura del documento y, así, garantizar que el código que procesa el documento que contiene cuenta con el formato correcto.
References
[1] Xerces parser features The Apache Foundation
[2] XML Validation in J2SE 1.5 Sun Microsystems
[3] Axis User's Guide Apache Software Foundation
[4] IDS16-J. Prevent XML Injection CERT
[5] IDS17-J. Prevent XML External Entity Attacks CERT
[6] INJECT-3: XML and HTML generation requires care Oracle
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 112
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310, CCI-002385, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[20] 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), 13.3.1 SOAP Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[40] 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
[41] 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
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.controlflow.java.missing_xml_validation_untyped_response
Abstract
Una configuración de Anypoint Database Connector contiene una contraseña de texto sin formato.
Explanation
Codificar una contraseña permite que todos los desarrolladores de proyectos vean la contraseña. También dificulta la solución del problema. Una vez que el código está en producción, nadie puede cambiar la contraseña sin aplicar revisiones al software. Si la cuenta protegida por la contraseña está en riesgo, los propietarios del sistema deben elegir entre seguridad y disponibilidad.
References
[1] MuleSoft Database Connector 1.13 - Mule 4
[2] MuleSoft Configuring Properties
[3] MuleSoft Secure Configuration Properties
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 259, CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000196, CCI-001199, CCI-002367, CCI-003109
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SA-4 Acquisition Process (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SA-4 Acquisition Process, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.1 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective C.2.1.2 - Web Software Access Controls
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003110 CAT I, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003110 CAT I, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003110 CAT I, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003110 CAT I, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003110 CAT I, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003110 CAT I, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
desc.configuration.xml.mule_misconfiguration_hardcoded_password
Abstract
Se crea una conexión de base de datos sin aplicar el cifrado.
Explanation
El conector de la base de datos de Mule debe forzar el transporte cifrado y verificar los certificados del servidor de la base de datos. Si las propiedades de conexión de la base de datos relevantes no se especifican o se configuran incorrectamente, las conexiones resultantes exponen los datos a acceso no autorizado, manipulación y posible robo.
References
[1] MuleSoft LLC, a Salesforce company Database Connector 1.13 - Mule 4
[2] MuleSoft LLC, a Salesforce company Database Connector XML and Maven Support - Mule 4
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000068, CCI-001453, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422, CCI-002890, CCI-003123
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM, SC
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-17 Remote Access (P1), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-17 Remote Access, MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
desc.configuration.xml.mule_misconfiguration_insecure_database_transport
Abstract
Un MuleSoft HTTP Listener Connector no está configurado para usar el protocolo HTTPS.
Explanation
HTTPS utiliza TLS (seguridad de la capa de transporte) para cifrar las solicitudes y respuestas HTTP habituales. Garantiza la integridad y confidencialidad de cualquier intercambio de datos.

Un HTTP Listener Connector no cifra su comunicación si su protocolo no se especifica o se establece en HTTP. Esto expone los datos a acceso no autorizado, manipulaciones y posible robo.

Ejemplo 1: La siguiente configuración de Mule establece el protocol de un HTTP Listener Connector (listener-connection) a HTTP. Como resultado, las conexiones con HTTP Listener no son seguras.

<http:listener-config name="http_listener_config">
<http:listener-connection host="example.com" port="8080" protocol="HTTP">
...
</http:listener-connection>
</http:listener-config>
References
[1] MuleSoft LLC, a Salesforce company Configure HTTP Listener Source - Mule 4
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000068, CCI-001453, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422, CCI-002890, CCI-003123
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SC
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-17 Remote Access (P1), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-17 Remote Access, MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.1 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
desc.configuration.xml.mule_misconfiguration_insecure_transport
Abstract
La configuración de Mule especifica una conexión TLS sin la verificación de validación del certificado del servidor.
Explanation
La verificación de la certificación es esencial para confirmar la identidad de la contraparte para una comunicación segura. Un elemento tls:context define un conjunto de configuraciones de conexión TLS. Entre las configuraciones, el elemento tls:trust-store especifica un archivo que contiene certificados de autoridades de certificación de confianza que un cliente usa para verificar un certificado presentado por un servidor. De forma predeterminada, el motor de tiempo de ejecución de Mule verifica el certificado del servidor para cada conexión TLS.

Sin embargo, si el valor del atributo insecure del elemento tls:trust-store es true, los certificados de servidor se aceptan sin verificación.

Ejemplo 1: La siguiente configuración de Mule establece el atributo insecure en true. Como resultado, el motor de tiempo de ejecución de Mule no verifica el certificado del servidor de ninguna conexión con el contexto TLS denominado demoTlsContext. Esta conexión es vulnerable a un ataque "man-in-the-middle".

...
<tls:context name="demoTlsContext">
...
<tls:trust-store ... insecure="true" ... />
...
<tls:context/>
...
References
[1] MuleSoft LLC, a Salesforce company Configure TLS with Keystores and Truststores
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 297
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000185, CCI-001941, CCI-001942, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM, SC
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) (P1), IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users), IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery, API8 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-001810 CAT I, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
desc.configuration.xml.mule_misconfiguration_server_identity_verification_disabled
Abstract
La creación de una consulta de Azure Cosmos DB dinámica con información que procede de un origen que no es de confianza podría permitir que un atacante modificara la acción de la consulta.
Explanation
La inyección de código NoSQL en Cosmos DB se produce cuando:

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



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear una consulta de Cosmos DB de forma dinámica.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente crea y ejecuta dinámicamente una consulta de Cosmos DB que busca un correo electrónico con un identificador específico.


...
String userName = User.Identity.Name;
String emailId = request["emailId"];
var client = account.CreateCloudTableClient();
var table = client.GetTableReference("Employee");
var query = table.CreateQuery<EmployeeEntity>().Where("user == '" + userName + "' AND emailId == '" + emailId "'");
var results = table.ExecuteQuery(query);
...


La consulta intenta ejecutar el código siguiente:


user == "<userName>" && emailId == "<emailId>"


Sin embargo, dado que la consulta se crea dinámicamente mediante la concatenación de una cadena de consulta constante y la entrada del usuario, solo funciona correctamente si emailId no contiene un carácter de comilla simple. Si un atacante con el nombre de usuario wiley introduce la cadena "123' || '4' != '5" para emailId, la consulta se convertirá en lo siguiente:


user == 'wiley' && emailId == '123' || '4' != '5'


La adición de la condición || '4' != '5' hace que la cláusula where siempre se evalúe como true, por lo que la consulta devuelve todas las entradas almacenadas en la colección emails, independientemente del propietario del correo electrónico.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[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 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dotnet.nosql_injection_cosmos_db
Abstract
Si elabora una consulta DynamoDB dinámica con una entrada de un origen que no es de confianza, un usuario malintencionado podría modificar el significado de la instrucción.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades NoSQL Injection en DynamoDB se pueden producir cuando:

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



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear dinámicamente una consulta DynamoDB.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código crea y ejecuta dinámicamente una consulta DynamoDB que busca a un usuario en función de su nombre de usuario o dirección de correo electrónico, junto con su contraseña.


...
// "type" parameter expected to be either: "Email" or "Username"
string type = request["type"];
string value = request["value"];
string password = request["password"];

var ddb = new AmazonDynamoDBClient();

var attrValues = new Dictionary<string,AttributeValue>();
attrValues[":value"] = new AttributeValue(value);
attrValues[":password"] = new AttributeValue(password);

var scanRequest = new ScanRequest();
scanRequest.FilterExpression = type + " = :value AND Password = :password";
scanRequest.TableName = "users";
scanRequest.ExpressionAttributeValues = attrValues;

var scanResponse = await ddb.ScanAsync(scanRequest);
...


La consulta intenta ejecutar el código siguiente:

Email = :value AND Password = :password


o

Username = :value AND Password = :password


Sin embargo, dado que la consulta se crea dinámicamente mediante la concatenación de una cadena de consulta de base constante y una cadena de entrada del usuario, solo funciona correctamente si type contiene alguno de los valores esperados. Si un usuario malintencionado introduce un valor de tipo como :value = :value OR :value, entonces la consulta será como se muestra a continuación:

:value = :value OR :value = :value AND Password = :password


La adición de la condición :value = :value hace que la cláusula where siempre se evalúe como true, por lo que la consulta devuelve todas las entradas almacenadas en la colección users, sin importar el propietario del correo electrónico.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[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 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dotnet.nosql_injection_dynamodb
Abstract
Si elabora una consulta DynamoDB dinámica con una entrada de un origen que no es de confianza, un usuario malintencionado podría modificar el significado de la instrucción.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades NoSQL Injection en DynamoDB se pueden producir cuando:

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



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear dinámicamente una consulta DynamoDB.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código crea y ejecuta dinámicamente una consulta DynamoDB que busca a un usuario en función de su nombre de usuario o dirección de correo electrónico, junto con su contraseña.


...
// "type" parameter expected to be either: "Email" or "Username"
String type = request.getParameter("type")
String value = request.getParameter("value")
String password = request.getParameter("password")

DynamoDbClient ddb = DynamoDbClient.create();

HashMap<String, AttributeValue> attrValues = new HashMap<String,AttributeValue>();
attrValues.put(":value", AttributeValue.builder().s(value).build());
attrValues.put(":password", AttributeValue.builder().s(password).build());

ScanRequest queryReq = ScanRequest.builder()
.filterExpression(type + " = :value AND Password = :password")
.tableName("users")
.expressionAttributeValues(attrValues)
.build();

ScanResponse response = ddb.scan(queryReq);
...


La consulta intenta ejecutar el código siguiente:

Email = :value AND Password = :password


o

Username = :value AND Password = :password


Sin embargo, dado que la consulta se crea dinámicamente mediante la concatenación de una cadena de consulta de base constante y una cadena de entrada del usuario, solo funciona correctamente si type contiene alguno de los valores esperados. Si un usuario malintencionado introduce un valor de tipo como :value = :value OR :value, entonces la consulta será como se muestra a continuación:

:value = :value OR :value = :value AND Password = :password


La adición de la condición :value = :value hace que la cláusula where siempre se evalúe como true, por lo que la consulta devuelve todas las entradas almacenadas en la colección users, sin importar el propietario del correo electrónico.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[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 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.java.nosql_injection_dynamodb
Abstract
La creación de una instrucción NoSQL dinámica con una entrada procedente de un origen que no es de confianza podría habilitar a un usuario malintencionado para modificar el significado de la instrucción o ejecutar comandos NoSQL arbitrarios.
Explanation

Los errores de inyección NoSQL ocurren cuando la entrada del usuario no se desinfecta de forma adecuada y se incluye directamente en las consultas de la base de datos, lo que permite a los atacantes manipular la lógica de la consulta y acceder a datos no autorizados. Esto puede suceder con operadores como $where, $gt, $lt y $ne. Para evitar ataques de este tipo, trate de no usar estos operadores con la entrada del usuario siempre que sea posible y asegúrese de realizar una validación y desinfección adecuadas de la entrada del usuario.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente crea y ejecuta dinámicamente una consulta NoSQL que busca elementos que coincidan con un nombre especificado. La consulta restringe los elementos mostrados a aquellos donde el propietario coincide con el nombre de usuario del usuario actualmente autenticado.


...
function getItemsByOwner(username: string) {
db.items.find({ $where: `this.owner === '${username}'` }).then((orders: any) => {
console.log(orders);
}).catch((err: any) => {
console.error(err);
});
}
...


Si el `nombre de usuario` es `john`, se obtiene un true y la consulta //`, se convierte en:


db.items.find({ $where: `this.owner === 'john'; return true; //` })


De esta forma, se devuelven todos los documentos de la colección de elementos.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[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 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[17] Standards Mapping - 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 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.javascript.nosql_injection
Abstract
Si se elabora una consulta MongoDB dinámica con una entrada de un origen que no es de confianza, un atacante podría modificar el significado de la instrucción.
Explanation
Los errores NoSQL Injection en MongoDB se producen cuando:

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



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear dinámicamente una consulta MongoDB.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente crea y ejecuta dinámicamente una consulta MongoDB que busca correos electrónicos con un ID específico.


...
String userName = User.Identity.Name;
String emailId = request["emailId"];
var coll = mongoClient.GetDatabase("MyDB").GetCollection<BsonDocument>("emails");
var docs = coll.Find(new BsonDocument("$where", "this.name == '" + name + "'")).ToList();
...


La consulta intenta ejecutar el código siguiente:


this.owner == "<userName>" && this.emailId == "<emailId>"


Sin embargo, dado que la consulta se crea dinámicamente mediante la concatenación de una cadena de consulta constante y la entrada del usuario, solo funciona correctamente si emailId no contiene un carácter de comilla simple. Si un atacante con el nombre de usuario wiley introduce la cadena "123' || '4' != '5" para emailId, la consulta se convertirá en lo siguiente:


this.owner == 'wiley' && this.emailId == '123' || '4' != '5'


La adición de la condición || '4' != '5' hace que la cláusula where siempre se evalúe como true, por lo que la consulta devuelve todas las entradas almacenadas en la colección emails, independientemente del propietario del correo electrónico.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[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 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dotnet.nosql_injection_mongodb
Abstract
Si crea una consulta MongoDB dinámica con una entrada de un origen que no es de confianza, un atacante podría modificar el significado de la instrucción.
Explanation
Los errores NoSQL Injection en MongoDB se producen cuando:

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



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear dinámicamente una consulta MongoDB.

Ejemplo 1: el código siguiente crea y ejecuta dinámicamente una consulta MongoDB que busca correos electrónicos con un ID específico.


...
String userName = ctx.getAuthenticatedUserName();
String emailId = request.getParameter("emailId")
MongoCollection<Document> col = mongoClient.getDatabase("MyDB").getCollection("emails");
BasicDBObject Query = new BasicDBObject();
Query.put("$where", "this.owner == \"" + userName + "\" && this.emailId == \"" + emailId + "\"");
FindIterable<Document> find= col.find(Query);
...


La consulta intenta ejecutar el código siguiente:


this.owner == "<userName>" && this.emailId == "<emailId>"


Sin embargo, dado que la consulta se crea dinámicamente mediante la concatenación de una cadena de consulta de base constante y una cadena de entrada del usuario, la consulta solo funciona correctamente si emailId no contiene un carácter de comilla doble. Si un atacante con el nombre de usuario wiley introduce la cadena "123" || "4" != "5" para emailId, la consulta se convertirá en lo siguiente:


this.owner == "wiley" && this.emailId == "123" || "4" != "5"


La adición de la condición || "4" != "5" hace que la cláusula where siempre se evalúe como true, por lo que la consulta devuelve todas las entradas almacenadas en la colección emails, sin importar el propietario del correo electrónico.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[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 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.java.nosql_injection_mongodb
Abstract
Si elabora una consulta MongoDB dinámica con una entrada de un origen que no es de confianza, un atacante podría modificar el significado de la instrucción.
Explanation
Los errores NoSQL Injection en MongoDB se producen cuando:

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



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear dinámicamente una consulta MongoDB.

Ejemplo 1:el código siguiente crea y ejecuta dinámicamente una consulta MongoDB que busca correos electrónicos con un ID específico.


...
userName = req.field('userName')
emailId = req.field('emaiId')
results = db.emails.find({"$where", "this.owner == \"" + userName + "\" && this.emailId == \"" + emailId + "\""});
...


La consulta intenta ejecutar el código siguiente:


this.owner == "<userName>" && this.emailId == "<emailId>"


Sin embargo, dado que la consulta se crea dinámicamente mediante la concatenación de una cadena de consulta de base constante y una cadena de entrada del usuario, la consulta solo funciona correctamente si emailId no contiene un carácter de comilla doble. Si un atacante con el nombre de usuario wiley introduce la cadena "123" || "4" != "5" para emailId, la consulta se convertirá en lo siguiente:


this.owner == "wiley" && this.emailId == "123" || "4" != "5"


Al añadir la condición || "4" != "5", la cláusula where siempre se evalúa como true, por lo que la consulta devuelve todas las entradas almacenadas en la colección emails, sin importar el propietario del correo electrónico.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[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 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.python.nosql_injection_mongodb
Abstract
Si se elabora una consulta Realm dinámica con una entrada de un origen que no es de confianza, un usuario malintencionado podría modificar el significado de la instrucción.
Explanation
Las deficiencias NoSQL Injection en Realm se producen cuando:

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



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear dinámicamente una consulta Realm.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente crea y ejecuta dinámicamente una consulta Realm que busca correos electrónicos con un ID específico.


...
NSString *emailId = [self getEmailIdFromUser];
NSString *query = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"id == '%@'", emailId];
RLMResults<Email *> *emails = [Email objectsInRealm:realm where:query];
...


La consulta intenta ejecutar el código siguiente:


id == '<emailId value>'


Sin embargo, dado que la consulta se crea dinámicamente mediante la concatenación de una cadena de consulta de base constante y una cadena de entrada del usuario, solo funciona correctamente si emailId no contiene un carácter de comilla simple. Si un usuario malintencionado introduce la cadena 123' or '4' != '5 para emailId, entonces la consulta será de la siguiente forma:


id == '123' or '4' != '5'


Al añadir la condición or '4' != '5', la cláusula where siempre se evalúa como true, lo que podría hacer que la consulta devuelva todas las entradas almacenadas en la colección emails, sin importar el propietario del correo electrónico.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[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 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[17] Standards Mapping - 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 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.objc.nosql_injection_realm
Abstract
Si se elabora una consulta Realm dinámica con una entrada de un origen que no es de confianza, un usuario malintencionado podría modificar el significado de la instrucción.
Explanation
Las deficiencias NoSQL Injection en Realm se producen cuando:

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



2. Los datos se utilizan para crear dinámicamente una consulta Realm.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente crea y ejecuta dinámicamente una consulta Realm que busca correos electrónicos con un ID específico.


...
let emailId = getFromUser("emailId")
let email = realm.objects(Email.self).filter("id == '" + emailId + "'")
...


La consulta intenta ejecutar el código siguiente:


id == '<emailId value>'


Sin embargo, dado que la consulta se crea dinámicamente mediante la concatenación de una cadena de consulta de base constante y una cadena de entrada del usuario, solo funciona correctamente si emailId no contiene un carácter de comilla simple. Si un usuario malintencionado introduce la cadena 123' or '4' != '5 para emailId, entonces la consulta será de la siguiente forma:


id == '123' or '4' != '5'


Al añadir la condición or '4' != '5', la cláusula filter siempre se evalúa como true, lo que podría hacer que la consulta devuelva todas las entradas almacenadas en la colección emails, sin importar el propietario del correo electrónico.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[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 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[17] Standards Mapping - 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 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.swift.nosql_injection_realm
Abstract
El programa puede eliminar potencialmente la referencia de un puntero nulo, generando una NullException.
Explanation
Los punteros nulos suelen producirse debido a que se ha infringido alguna presuposición del programador.

La mayoría de los problemas con el puntero nulo provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad de software. Sin embargo, si un atacante puede desencadenar intencionadamente la eliminación de la referencia del puntero nulo, es posible que también pueda usar la excepción resultante para omitir la lógica de seguridad o para hacer que la aplicación revele información de depuración, la cual será valiosa para la planificación de ataques posteriores.

Ejemplo 1: en el siguiente código, el programador presupone que el sistema tiene siempre definida una propiedad denominada "cmd". Si un usuario malintencionado puede controlar el entorno del programa para que no se defina "cmd", el programa genera una excepción de puntero nulo al intentar llamar al método Trim().


string cmd = null;
...
cmd = Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("cmd");
cmd = cmd.Trim();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[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 - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.3
[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 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.dotnet.null_dereference
Abstract
El programa podría desreferenciar un puntero nulo y, por lo tanto, ocasionar un error de segmentación.
Explanation
Las excepciones del puntero nulo normalmente se producen cuando una o varias de las hipótesis del programador se infringen. Hay al menos tres enfoques para este problema: comprobar después de desreferenciar, desreferenciar después de comprobar y desreferenciar después de almacenar. Se produce un error de desreferencia tras la comprobación cuando un programa desreferencia un puntero que puede ser null antes de comprobar si es null o no. Los errores de desreferencia tras la comprobación se producen cuando un programa realiza una comprobación explícita de null y procede a desreferenciar el puntero cuando se sabe que es null. Los errores de este tipo son normalmente el resultado de errores de escritura o descuidos del programador. Los errores de desreferencia tras el almacenamiento se producen cuando un programa establece de forma explícita un puntero en null y luego lo desreferencia. Con frecuencia, el error es el resultado de que un programador inicialice una variable en null cuando se declara.

La mayoría de los problemas del puntero nulo derivan en problemas generales de confiabilidad de software. Sin embargo, si un atacante puede desencadenar intencionadamente la desreferencia del puntero nulo, también puede ser capaz de usar la excepción resultante para eludir la lógica de seguridad y planear un ataque por denegación de servicio o hacer que la aplicación revele la información de depuración, la cual será valiosa para la planificación de ataques posteriores.

Ejemplo 1: en el código siguiente, el programador supone que la variable ptr no es NULL. Esta suposición se hace explícita cuando el programador desreferencia el puntero. Esta suposición luego queda contradicha cuando el programador contrasta ptr y NULL. Si ptr puede ser NULL al comprobarla en la instrucción if, entonces también puede ser NULL cuando se desreferencia y podría ocasionar un error de segmentación.


ptr->field = val;
...
if (ptr != NULL) {
...
}
Ejemplo 2: En el código siguiente, el programador confirma que la variable ptr es NULL y por eso lo desreferencia erróneamente. Si ptr es NULL cuando se comprueba en la instrucción if, entonces se produce una desreferencia de null que provocará un error de segmentación.


if (ptr == null) {
ptr->field = val;
...
}
Ejemplo 3: En el código siguiente, el programador olvida que la cadena '\0' es en realidad 0 o NULL; por lo tanto, puede desreferenciar un puntero nulo y provocar un fallo de segmentación.


if (ptr == '\0') {
*ptr = val;
...
}
Ejemplo 4: En el código siguiente, el programador establece explícitamente la variable ptr en NULL. A continuación, el programador desreferencia ptr antes de comprobar si en el objeto hay un valor null.


*ptr = NULL;
...
ptr->field = val;
...
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[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 - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.3
[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 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.null_dereference
Abstract
El programa puede eliminar potencialmente la referencia de un puntero nulo, generando una NullPointerException.
Explanation
Los punteros nulos suelen producirse debido a que se ha infringido alguna presuposición del programador.

La mayoría de los problemas con el puntero nulo provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad de software. Sin embargo, si un atacante puede desencadenar intencionadamente la eliminación de la referencia del puntero nulo, es posible que también pueda usar la excepción resultante para omitir la lógica de seguridad o para hacer que la aplicación revele información de depuración, la cual será valiosa para la planificación de ataques posteriores.

Ejemplo 1: en el siguiente código, el programador presupone que el sistema tiene siempre definida una propiedad denominada "cmd". Si un usuario malintencionado puede controlar el entorno del programa para que no se defina "cmd", el programa genera una excepción de puntero nulo al intentar llamar al método trim().


String val = null;
...
cmd = System.getProperty("cmd");
if (cmd)
val = util.translateCommand(cmd);
...
cmd = val.trim();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[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 - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.3
[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 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.null_dereference
Abstract
La deserialización de datos que no son de confianza permite la inyección de objetos PHP arbitrarios, lo cual puede provocar que el programa ejecute comandos malintencionados en nombre de un atacante.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de objetos se producen cuando los datos que no son de confianza no se corrigen correctamente antes de transferirlos a la función unserialize(). Los usuarios malintencionados podrían transferir cadenas serializadas especialmente diseñadas a una llamada unserialize() vulnerable, dando como resultado la inyección de objetos PHP en el ámbito de la aplicación. La gravedad de esta vulnerabilidad depende de las clases disponibles en el ámbito de la aplicación. Las clases que implementan un método mágico PHP como __wakeup o __destruct serán interesantes para los atacantes dado que podrán ejecutar el código dentro de esos métodos.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código muestra una clase PHP que implementa el método mágico __destruct() y ejecuta un comando del sistema definido como una propiedad de clases. También hay una llamada no segura a unserialize() con datos proporcionados por el usuario.


...
class SomeAvailableClass {
public $command=null;
public function __destruct() {
system($this->command);
}
}
...
$user = unserialize($_GET['user']);
...


En el Example 1, la aplicación puede estar esperando un objeto de User serializado, pero un atacante podría proporcionar una versión serializada de SomeAvailableClass con un valor predefinido para su propiedad command:


GET REQUEST: http://server/page.php?user=O:18:"SomeAvailableClass":1:{s:7:"command";s:8:"uname -a";}


Se llamará al método destructor tan pronto como no haya otras referencias al objeto de $user y, a continuación, ejecutará el comando proporcionado por el atacante.

Los atacantes podrían encadenar diferentes clases declaradas cuando se llama al unserialize() vulnerable mediante una técnica conocida como "Programación orientada a las propiedades", que introdujo Stefan Esser durante la conferencia BlackHat de 2010. Esta técnica permite a un atacante volver a utilizar el código existente para diseñar su propia carga.
References
[1] Johannes Dahse, Nikolai Krein, and Thorsten Holz Code Reuse Attacks in PHP: Automated POP Chain Generation
[2] Stefan Esser Utilizing Code Reuse/ROP in PHP Application Exploits
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [16] CWE ID 502
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] 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
[32] 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.3.5 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.object_injection
Abstract
La deserialización de datos que no son de confianza permite la inyección de objetos de Ruby arbitrarios, lo cual puede provocar que el programa ejecute comandos malintencionados en nombre de un usuario malintencionado.
Explanation
Las vulnerabilidades de inyección de objetos se producen cuando los datos que no son de confianza no se corrigen correctamente antes de transferirlos a la función que deserializa los datos como YAML.load(). Los usuarios malintencionados podrían transferir cadenas serializadas especialmente diseñadas a una llamada YAML.load() vulnerable, dando como resultado la inyección de objetos de Ruby arbitrarios en el programa, siempre y cuando la clase se cargue en la aplicación en el momento de deserialización. Esto puede facilitar un montón de oportunidades de ataques diversos, como omitir la lógica de validación para buscar vulnerabilidades de Cross-Site Scripting, permitir la SQL Injection a través de lo que parecen ser valores codificados o incluso la ejecución de código completa.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código muestra una clase de Ruby que crea una consulta SQL con sus atributos que luego se utiliza para consultar en la base de datos. También hay una llamada no segura a YAML.load() con datos proporcionados por el usuario.


...
class Transaction
attr_accessor :id
def initialize(num=nil)
@id = num.is_a?(Numeric) ? num : nil
end

def print_details
unless @id.nil?
print $conn.query("SELECT * FROM transactions WHERE id=#{@id}")
end
end
end

...
user = YAML.load(params[:user]);
user.print_details
...


En el Example 1, la aplicación puede estar esperando a un objeto de User serializado, que también tiene una función llamada print_details, pero un atacante en realidad podría proporcionar una versión serializada de un objeto Transaction con un valor predefinido para su atributo @id. Por lo tanto, una solicitud como la siguiente puede permitir la omisión de la comprobación de validación que intenta asegurarse de que @id es un valor numérico.


GET REQUEST: http://server/page?user=!ruby%2Fobject%3ATransaction%0Aid%3A4%20or%205%3D5%0A


Si observamos la versión decodificada de esto, vemos que el parámetro user tiene asignado !ruby/object:Transaction\nid:4 or 5=5\n.
Entonces, la deserialización del parámetro de usuario creará un objeto de tipo Transaction y @id se establecerá en "4 or 5=5". Cuando el desarrollador cree que se llamará a User#print_details(), ahora se llamará a Transaction#print_details() y la interpolación de cadena de Ruby significará que la consulta SQL se cambiará para ejecutar la consulta: SELECT * FROM transactions WHERE id=4 or 5=5. Dado que se agregó la cláusula adicional, la consulta se evalúa en true y devolverá todo dentro de la tabla transactions en lugar de la única fila prevista por el desarrollador.

Los atacantes podrían encadenar diferentes clases declaradas cuando se llama al YAML.load() vulnerable mediante una técnica conocida como "Programación orientada a las propiedades", que introdujo Stefan Esser durante la conferencia BlackHat de 2010. Esta técnica permite a un atacante volver a utilizar el código existente para diseñar su propia carga.
References
[1] HD Moore Serialization Mischief in Ruby Land (CVE-2013-0156)
[2] Ruby Ruby Security
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [16] CWE ID 502
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 1.5.2 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.5.1 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.5.3 Deserialization Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] 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
[32] 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.3.5 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.object_injection
Abstract
Un método clone() debe llamar super.clone() para obtener el nuevo objeto.
Explanation
Todas las implementaciones de clone() deben obtener el nuevo objeto llamando super.clone(). Si una clase no puede seguir esta convención, un método clone() de subclase devolverá un objeto del tipo incorrecto.


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

public class KibitzState implements StateHolder {
public Object saveState(FacesContext fc) {
...
}
}
References
[1] Sun Microsystems JavaDoc for StateHolder Interface
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 684
desc.structural.java.object_model_violation_just_one_of_restoreState_saveState_defined
Abstract
El uso de funciones en desuso u obsoletas podría indicar código sin atender.
Explanation
En general, a medida que evolucionan los lenguajes de programación, los métodos se quedan obsoletos de vez en cuando debido a:

- Los avances en el lenguaje
- El conocimiento mejorado del modo seguro y eficaz en que deben realizarse las
operaciones
- Los cambios en las convenciones que rigen determinadas operaciones

Las instrucciones que se quitan de un lenguaje normalmente se reemplazan por homólogos más recientes que realizan la misma tarea de alguna manera diferente y, con suerte, mejor.

En concreto, SAP ABAP ha evolucionado para incluir objetos ABAP, la extensión orientada a objetos de ABAP y para operar en un entorno Unicode compatible. Como resultado, se exige una sintaxis más estricta en las clases o los programas Unicode. Las construccionesobsoletas todavía están disponibles por razones de compatibilidad con versiones anteriores únicamente y solo se puede acceder a ellos fuera de las clases o en programas que no sean Unicode. Hay construcciones de reemplazo para todos los elementos de lenguaje obsoletos, que mejoran la eficiencia y legibilidad de los programas. Muchas especificaciones de memoria, longitud y tipo implícitas y ambiguas de la sintaxis obsoleta deben especificarse de un modo más preciso y explícito en la nueva sintaxis. Se recomienda que adopte la nueva sintaxis para que los programas se entiendan mejor, sean más robustos y más fáciles de mantener.


No todas las funciones están en desuso o se sustituyen porque supongan un riesgo de seguridad. Sin embargo, la presencia de una función obsoleta a menudo indica que el código que lo rodea se ha quedado sin atender y que puede estar en mal estado. La seguridad del software no ha sido una prioridad, o incluso una consideración, durante mucho tiempo. Si el programa utiliza las funciones en desuso u obsoletas, aumentará la probabilidad de que haya problemas de seguridad al acecho.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.abap.obsolete
Abstract
El uso de funciones en desuso u obsoletas podría indicar código sin atender.
Explanation
A medida que evolucionan los lenguajes de programación, las funciones se vuelven a veces obsoletas debido a los siguientes motivos:

- Los avances en el lenguaje
- El conocimiento mejorado del modo seguro y eficaz en que deben realizarse las
operaciones
- Los cambios en las convenciones que rigen determinadas operaciones


Las funciones eliminadas de un lenguaje suelen reemplazarse por equivalentes más recientes que realizan la misma tarea de forma ligeramente diferente y es de esperar que también de forma más eficaz.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código crea un nuevo objeto SqlClientPermission, que controla el modo en el que los usuarios pueden conectarse a una base de datos. En este ejemplo, el programa transfiere false como segundo parámetro al constructor, que controla si los usuarios tienen permiso para establecer conexión con contraseñas en blanco. Al transferir el valor false a este parámetro, se indica que no deben permitirse contraseñas en blanco.


...
SCP = new SqlClientPermission(pstate, false);
...


Sin embargo, como el objeto PermissionState transferido como primer parámetro reemplaza cualquier valor transferido al segundo parámetro, el constructor permite el uso de contraseñas en blanco para las conexiones de base de datos, lo que contradice el segundo argumento. Para rechazar las contraseñas en blanco, el programa debe transferir PermissionState.None al primer parámetro del constructor. Debido a la ambigüedad en su funcionalidad, la versión de dos parámetros del constructor SqlClientPermission se ha dejado de utilizar en favor de la versión de un único parámetro, que transmite el mismo grado de información sin el riesgo de interpretaciones erróneas.

No todas las funciones están en desuso o se sustituyen porque supongan un riesgo de seguridad. Sin embargo, la presencia de una función obsoleta a menudo indica que el código que lo rodea se ha quedado sin atender y que puede estar en mal estado. La seguridad del software no ha sido una prioridad, o incluso una consideración, durante mucho tiempo. Si el programa utiliza las funciones en desuso u obsoletas, aumentará la probabilidad de que haya problemas de seguridad al acecho.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.dotnet.obsolete
Abstract
El uso de funciones en desuso u obsoletas podría indicar código sin atender.
Explanation
A medida que evolucionan los lenguajes de programación, las funciones se vuelven a veces obsoletas debido a los siguientes motivos:

- Los avances en el lenguaje.
- Conocimiento mejorado de cómo las operaciones deben realizarse de forma eficaz y segura.
- Los cambios en las convenciones que rigen determinadas operaciones.

Las funciones que se eliminan suelen reemplazarse por equivalentes más recientes que realizan la misma tarea de forma ligeramente diferente y es de esperar que también de forma más eficaz.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código usa la función en desuso getpw() para comprobar que una contraseña de texto sin formato coincide con una contraseña cifrada del usuario. Si la contraseña es válida, la función establece result en 1; de lo contrario, se establece en 0.


...
getpw(uid, pwdline);
for (i=0; i<3; i++){
cryptpw=strtok(pwdline, ":");
pwdline=0;
}
result = strcmp(crypt(plainpw,cryptpw), cryptpw) == 0;
...


Aunque el código suele tener un comportamiento correcto, el uso de la función getpw() puede provocar problemas desde el punto de vista de la seguridad, ya que puede desbordar el búfer que pasa a su segundo parámetro. Debido a esta vulnerabilidad, getpw() se ha sustituido por getpwuid(), que realiza la misma búsqueda que getpw(), pero que devuelve un puntero a una estructura asignada estadísticamente para mitigar el riesgo.

No todas las funciones están en desuso o se sustituyen porque supongan un riesgo de seguridad. Sin embargo, la presencia de una función obsoleta a menudo indica que el código que lo rodea se ha quedado sin atender y que puede estar en mal estado. La seguridad del software no ha sido una prioridad, o incluso una consideración, durante mucho tiempo. Si el programa utiliza las funciones en desuso u obsoletas, aumentará la probabilidad de que haya problemas de seguridad al acecho.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.cpp.obsolete
Abstract
El uso de funciones desusadas u obsoletas podría indicar código desatendido o el uso de una versión anticuada de ColdFusion.
Explanation
A medida que evolucionan los lenguajes de programación, los métodos se vuelven obsoletos de vez en cuando debido a:

- Los avances en el lenguaje
- El conocimiento mejorado del modo seguro y eficaz en que deben realizarse las
operaciones
- Los cambios en las convenciones que rigen determinadas operaciones

Los métodos que se quitan de un lenguaje normalmente se reemplazan por homólogos más recientes que realizan la misma tarea de alguna manera diferente y, con suerte, mejor.


No todas las funciones están en desuso o se sustituyen porque supongan un riesgo de seguridad. Sin embargo, la presencia de una función obsoleta a menudo indica que el código que lo rodea se ha quedado sin atender y que puede estar en mal estado. La seguridad del software no ha sido una prioridad, o incluso una consideración, durante mucho tiempo. Si el programa utiliza las funciones en desuso u obsoletas, aumentará la probabilidad de que haya problemas de seguridad al acecho.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.cfml.obsolete
Abstract
El uso de funciones en desuso u obsoletas podría indicar código sin atender.
Explanation
A medida que evolucionan los lenguajes de programación, los métodos se vuelven obsoletos de vez en cuando debido a:

- Los avances en el lenguaje
- El conocimiento mejorado del modo seguro y eficaz en que deben realizarse las
operaciones
- Los cambios en las convenciones que rigen determinadas operaciones

Los métodos que se quitan de un lenguaje normalmente se reemplazan por homólogos más recientes que realizan la misma tarea de alguna manera diferente y, con suerte, mejor.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código crea un objeto de cadena a partir de una matriz de bytes y un valor que especifica los 8 bits principales de cada carácter Unicode de 16 bits.


...
String name = new String(nameBytes, highByte);
...


En este ejemplo, es posible que el constructor no pueda convertir correctamente bytes en caracteres según el juego de caracteres que se utilice para codificar la cadena representada por nameBytes. Debido a la evolución de los juegos de caracteres utilizados para codificar cadenas, este constructor quedó obsoleto y reemplazado por un constructor que acepta como uno de sus parámetros el nombre del charset que se utiliza para codificar los bytes para la conversión.

No todas las funciones están en desuso o se sustituyen porque supongan un riesgo de seguridad. Sin embargo, la presencia de una función obsoleta a menudo indica que el código que lo rodea se ha quedado sin atender y que puede estar en mal estado. La seguridad del software no ha sido una prioridad, o incluso una consideración, durante mucho tiempo. Si el programa utiliza las funciones en desuso u obsoletas, aumentará la probabilidad de que haya problemas de seguridad al acecho.
References
[1] MET02-J. Do not use deprecated or obsolete classes or methods CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.java.obsolete
Abstract
El uso de funciones en desuso u obsoletas podría indicar código sin atender.
Explanation
A medida que evolucionan los lenguajes de programación, los métodos se vuelven obsoletos de vez en cuando debido a:

- Los avances en el lenguaje
- El conocimiento mejorado del modo seguro y eficaz en que deben realizarse las
operaciones
- Los cambios en las convenciones que rigen determinadas operaciones.

Los métodos que se quitan de un lenguaje normalmente se reemplazan por homólogos más recientes que realizan la misma tarea de alguna manera diferente y, con suerte, mejor.
Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código utiliza la stdlib Digest::HMAC, cuyo uso está explícitamente contraindicado en la documentación debido a su implicación accidental dentro de una versión.


require 'digest/hmac'

hmac = Digest::HMAC.new("foo", Digest::RMD160)
...
hmac.update(buf)
...


En este ejemplo, la clase Digest::HMAC dejó de utilizarse de forma inmediata al estar implicada en una inclusión accidental dentro de una versión. Debido a la posibilidad de que no funcione según lo previsto a causa del código experimental o no probado adecuadamente, su uso está fuertemente contraindicado, especialmente si consideramos la relación que tienen los códigos HMAC con la funcionalidad criptográfica.

No todas las funciones están en desuso o se sustituyen porque supongan un riesgo de seguridad. Sin embargo, la presencia de una función obsoleta a menudo indica que el código que lo rodea se ha quedado sin atender y que puede estar en mal estado. La seguridad del software no ha sido una prioridad, o incluso una consideración, durante mucho tiempo. Si el programa utiliza las funciones en desuso u obsoletas, aumentará la probabilidad de que haya problemas de seguridad al acecho.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.structural.ruby.obsolete
Abstract
La función está obsoleta y no garantiza que un puntero sea válido o que sea seguro utilizar la memoria referenciada.
Explanation
Hay varias razones para no utilizar las funciones de clase IsBadXXXPtr(). Estas funciones:
1) No son seguras para subprocesos.
2) Con frecuencia están implicadas en bloqueos causados por su sondeo de direcciones de memoria no válidas.
3) Se cree de forma errónea que realizan una administración de errores correcta durante las condiciones de excepción.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente utiliza IsBadWritePtr() en un intento de impedir malas escrituras de memoria.

if (IsBadWritePtr(ptr, length))
{
[handle error]
}


Con frecuencia los programadores utilizan estas funciones con la intención de que detecten casos de excepción, pero las funciones normalmente causan más problemas de los que solucionan.
References
[1] Raymond Chen IsBadXxxPtr should really be called CrashProgramRandomly
[2] IsBadWritePtr Function Microsoft
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[34] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.semantic.cpp.obsolete_inadequate_pointer_validation
Abstract
Las funciones, checkCallingOrSelfPermission () o checkCallingOrSelfUriPermission (), deben usarse con cuidado ya que permiten que el programa que realiza la llamada, sin los permisos requeridos o sin permisos, eluda la verificación de permisos, utilizando los permisos de su aplicación.
Explanation
La función checkCallingOrSelfPermission() o checkCallingOrSelfUriPermission() determina si el programa que realiza la llamada cuenta con el permiso necesario para acceder a determinado servicio o URI. Sin embargo, estas funciones deben utilizarse con cuidado, ya que pueden conceder acceso a aplicaciones malintencionadas, que carecen de los permisos correspondientes, adoptando los permisos de las aplicaciones.

En otras palabras, una aplicación malintencionada sin los permisos correspondientes puede omitir la comprobación de permisos mediante la adopción del permiso de la aplicación para obtener acceso a recursos a los que, de lo contrario, no podría acceder. Esto provoca lo que se conoce como ataque de tipo "confused deputy".
References
[1] Designing for Security Android
[2] Context: Android Developers Android
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 732
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.5 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 863
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.structural.java.often_misused_android_permission_check