95 개 항목 찾음
취약점
Abstract
사용자 입력이 파일 권한을 직접 변경하는 것을 허용하면 공격자가 보호된 시스템 리소스에 접근할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
File permission manipulation 오류는 다음 조건 중 하나를 만족할 때 발생합니다.

1. 공격자가 file system의 권한을 수정하는 작업에서 사용한 경로를 지정할 수 있는 경우

2. 공격자가 파일 시스템상의 작업에 의해 할당된 권한을 지정할 수 있습니다.

예제 1: 다음 코드에서는 시스템 환경 변수의 입력을 사용하여 파일 권한을 설정합니다. 공격자는 시스템 환경 변수를 변경할 수 있으면 프로그램을 사용하여 프로그램이 조작하는 파일에 접근할 수 있습니다. 프로그램이 path manipulation에도 취약한 경우 공격자는 이 취약점을 이용하여 시스템의 임의 파일에 접근할 수 있습니다.


permissions := strconv.Atoi(os.Getenv("filePermissions"));
fMode := os.FileMode(permissions)
os.chmod(filePath, fMode);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] 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
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
사용자 입력이 파일 권한을 직접 변경하는 것을 허용하면 공격자가 보호된 시스템 리소스에 접근할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
파일 권한 조작 오류는 다음 조건 중 하나를 만족할 때 발생합니다.

1. 공격자가 파일 시스템에서 권한을 수정하는 작업에 사용되는 경로를 지정할 수 있습니다.

2. 공격자가 파일 시스템 상의 작업에 의해 할당된 권한을 지정할 수 있습니다.

예제 1: 다음 코드는 시스템 속성의 입력을 사용하여 기본 권한 마스크를 설정합니다. 공격자는 시스템 속성을 변경할 수 있으면 프로그램을 사용하여 프로그램이 조작하는 파일에 접근할 수 있습니다. 프로그램이 path manipulation에도 취약한 경우 공격자는 이 취약점을 이용하여 시스템의 임의 파일에 접근할 수 있습니다.


String permissionMask = System.getProperty("defaultFileMask");
Path filePath = userFile.toPath();
...
Set<PosixFilePermission> perms = PosixFilePermissions.fromString(permissionMask);
Files.setPosixFilePermissions(filePath, perms);
...
References
[1] FIO01-J. Create files with appropriate access permissions CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] 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
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
사용자 입력이 파일 권한을 직접 변경하는 것을 허용하면 공격자가 보호된 시스템 리소스에 접근할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
파일 권한 조작 오류는 다음 조건 중 하나를 만족할 때 발생합니다.

1. 공격자가 파일 시스템에서 권한을 수정하는 작업에 사용되는 경로를 지정할 수 있습니다.

2. 공격자가 파일 시스템 상의 작업에 의해 할당된 권한을 지정할 수 있습니다.

예제: 다음 코드는 웹 페이지를 FTP를 통해 업로드하는 사용자를 위한 적절한 파일 권한을 설정하도록 설계되었습니다. 이 코드는 HTTP 요청의 입력을 사용하여 외부 사용자가 파일을 볼 수 있도록 표시합니다.


$rName = $_GET['publicReport'];
chmod("/home/". authenticateUser . "/public_html/" . rName,"0755");
...


그러나 공격자가 "../../localuser/public_html/.htpasswd" 등과 같이 publicReport에 대해 악성 값을 제공할 경우, 응용 프로그램은 지정된 파일을 공격자가 읽을 수 있게 합니다.

예제 2: 다음 코드는 구성 파일의 입력을 사용하여 기본 권한 마스크를 설정합니다. 공격자가 구성 파일을 변경할 수 있으면, 프로그램을 사용하여 프로그램이 조작하는 파일에 접근할 수 있습니다. 프로그램이 path manipulation에도 취약한 경우 공격자는 이 취약점을 이용하여 시스템의 임의 파일에 접근할 수 있습니다.


...
$mask = $CONFIG_TXT['perms'];
chmod($filename,$mask);
...
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] 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
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
사용자 입력이 파일 권한을 직접 변경하는 것을 허용하면 공격자가 보호된 시스템 리소스에 접근할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
File permission manipulation 오류는 다음 조건 중 하나를 만족할 때 발생합니다.

1. 공격자가 파일 시스템에서 권한을 수정하는 작업에 사용되는 경로를 지정할 수 있습니다.

2. 공격자가 파일 시스템상의 작업에 의해 할당된 권한을 지정할 수 있습니다.

예제 1: 다음 코드에서는 시스템 환경 변수의 입력을 사용하여 파일 권한을 설정합니다. 공격자는 시스템 환경 변수를 변경할 수 있으면 프로그램을 사용하여 프로그램이 조작하는 파일에 접근할 수 있습니다. 프로그램이 path manipulation에도 취약한 경우 공격자는 이 취약점을 이용하여 시스템의 임의 파일에 접근할 수 있습니다.


permissions = os.getenv("filePermissions");
os.chmod(filePath, permissions);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] 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
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
사용자 입력이 파일 권한을 직접 변경하는 것을 허용하면 공격자가 보호된 시스템 리소스에 접근할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
파일 권한 조작 오류는 다음 조건 중 하나를 만족할 때 발생합니다.

1. 공격자가 파일 시스템에서 권한을 수정하는 작업에 사용되는 경로를 지정할 수 있습니다.

2. 공격자가 파일 시스템 상의 작업에 의해 할당된 권한을 지정할 수 있습니다.

예제: 다음 코드는 웹 페이지를 FTP를 통해 업로드하는 사용자를 위한 적절한 파일 권한을 설정하도록 설계되었습니다. 이 코드는 HTTP 요청의 입력을 사용하여 외부 사용자가 파일을 볼 수 있도록 표시합니다.


...
rName = req['publicReport']
File.chmod("/home/#{authenticatedUser}/public_html/#{rName}", "0755")
...


그러나 공격자가 "../../localuser/public_html/.htpasswd" 등과 같이 publicReport에 대해 악성 값을 제공할 경우, 응용 프로그램은 지정된 파일을 공격자가 읽을 수 있게 합니다.

예제 2: 다음 코드는 구성 파일의 입력을 사용하여 기본 권한 마스크를 설정합니다. 공격자가 구성 파일을 변경할 수 있으면, 프로그램을 사용하여 프로그램이 조작하는 파일에 접근할 수 있습니다. 프로그램이 path manipulation에도 취약한 경우 공격자는 이 취약점을 이용하여 시스템의 임의 파일에 접근할 수 있습니다.


...
mask = config_params['perms']
File.chmod(filename, mask)
...
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] 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
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
다른 도메인의 스크립트를 포함시키는 것은 이 웹 페이지의 보안이 다른 도메인의 보안에 따라 달라지게 된다는 것을 의미합니다.
Explanation
다른 웹 사이트의 실행 가능 콘텐트를 포함시키는 것은 위험한 발상입니다. 이는 다른 사이트와 사용자의 사이트 보안을 함께 묶는 행위입니다.

예제: 다음 script 태그를 보겠습니다.

<script src="http://www.example.com/js/fancyWidget.js"></script>


이 태그가 www.example.com이 아닌 다른 웹 사이트에 나타나는 경우, 이 사이트의 정확한 비 악성 코드 사용 여부는 www.example.com에 따라 달라지게 됩니다. 공격자가 www.example.com을 손상시킨 경우, fancyWidget.js의 내용을 변경하여 사이트 보안을 침해할 수 있습니다. 예를 들어 fancyWidget.js에 코드를 추가하여 사용자의 기밀 데이터를 훔칠 수 있습니다.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 494, CWE ID 829
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M7 Insufficient Binary Protections
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[15] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Process Validation (WASC-40)
[31] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Process Validation
desc.content.html.hardcoded_domain
Abstract
확인되지 않은 입력을 URL에 연결하면 공격자가 요청 매개 변수의 값을 덮어쓸 수 있습니다. 공격자는 기존 매개 변수 값을 오버라이드하거나, 새 매개 변수를 삽입하거나, 직접 연결로부터 변수를 익스플로이트할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
HPP(HTTP Parameter Pollution) 공격은 인코딩된 쿼리 문자열 구분 기호를 다른 기존 매개 변수에 삽입하는 공격으로 구성됩니다. 웹 응용 프로그램이 사용자 입력을 제대로 정화하지 않으면 악의적인 사용자가 응용 프로그램의 로직을 침해하여 클라이언트 쪽 또는 서버 쪽 공격을 수행할 수 있습니다. 추가 매개 변수를 웹 응용 프로그램에 전송하고 이러한 매개 변수의 이름이 기존 매개 변수와 동일할 경우 웹 응용 프로그램은 다음과 같은 반응 중 하나를 보일 수 있습니다.

첫 번째 매개 변수의 데이터만 받아들일 수 있습니다.
마지막 매개 변수의 데이터를 받아들일 수 있습니다.
모든 매개 변수의 데이터를 받아들이고 서로 연결할 수 있습니다.


예를 들어, 다음과 같습니다.
- ASP.NET/IIS는 매개 변수의 모든 항목을 사용합니다.
- Apache Tomcat은 첫 번째 항목만 사용하고 나머지 항목은 무시합니다.
- mod_perl/Apache는 값을 값 배열로 변환합니다.

예제 1: 응용 프로그램 서버 및 응용 프로그램 자체의 로직에 따라 다음 요청이 인증 시스템에 혼란을 야기할 수 있으며 공격자가 다른 사용자로 가장할 수 있습니다.
http://www.server.com/login.aspx?name=alice&name=hacker

예제 2: 다음 코드는 HTTP 요청의 입력을 사용하여 두 개의 하이퍼링크를 렌더링합니다.

...
String lang = Request.Form["lang"];
WebClient client = new WebClient();
client.BaseAddress = url;
NameValueCollection myQueryStringCollection = new NameValueCollection();
myQueryStringCollection.Add("q", lang);
client.QueryString = myQueryStringCollection;
Stream data = client.OpenRead(url);
...


URL: http://www.host.com/election.aspx?poll_id=4567
링크1: <a href="http://www.host.com/vote.aspx?poll_id=4567&lang=en">영어<a>
링크2: <a href="http://www.host.com/vote.aspx?poll_id=4567&lang=es">스페인어<a>

프로그래머는 공격자가 en&poll_id=1 같은 lang을 제공할 가능성을 고려하지 않았기 때문에 공격자는 마음대로 poll_id를 변경할 수 있게 됩니다.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
확인되지 않은 입력을 URL에 연결하면 공격자가 요청 매개 변수의 값을 덮어쓸 수 있습니다. 공격자는 기존 매개 변수 값을 오버라이드하거나, 새 매개 변수를 삽입하거나, 직접 연결로부터 변수를 익스플로이트할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
HPP(HTTP Parameter Pollution) 공격은 인코딩된 쿼리 문자열 구분 기호를 다른 기존 매개 변수에 삽입하는 공격으로 구성됩니다. 웹 응용 프로그램이 사용자 입력을 제대로 정화하지 않으면 악의적인 사용자가 응용 프로그램의 로직을 침해하여 클라이언트 쪽 또는 서버 쪽 공격을 수행할 수 있습니다. 추가 매개 변수를 웹 응용 프로그램에 전송하고 이러한 매개 변수의 이름이 기존 매개 변수와 동일할 경우 웹 응용 프로그램은 다음과 같은 반응 중 하나를 보일 수 있습니다.

첫 번째 매개 변수의 데이터만 받아들일 수 있습니다.
마지막 매개 변수의 데이터를 받아들일 수 있습니다.
모든 매개 변수의 데이터를 받아들이고 서로 연결할 수 있습니다.


예를 들어, 다음과 같습니다.
- ASP.NET/IIS는 매개 변수의 모든 항목을 사용합니다.
- Apache Tomcat은 첫 번째 항목만 사용하고 나머지 항목은 무시합니다.
- mod_perl/Apache는 값을 값 배열로 변환합니다.

예제 1: 응용 프로그램 서버 및 응용 프로그램 자체의 로직에 따라 다음 요청이 인증 시스템에 혼란을 야기할 수 있으며 공격자가 다른 사용자로 가장할 수 있습니다.
http://www.example.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

예제 2: 다음 코드는 HTTP 요청의 입력을 사용하여 두 개의 하이퍼링크를 렌더링합니다.

...
String lang = request.getParameter("lang");
GetMethod get = new GetMethod("http://www.example.com");
get.setQueryString("lang=" + lang + "&poll_id=" + poll_id);
get.execute();
...


URL: http://www.example.com?poll_id=4567
링크1: <a href="001">영어<a>
링크2: <a href="002">스페인어<a>

프로그래머는 공격자가 en&poll_id=1 같은 lang을 제공할 가능성을 고려하지 않았기 때문에 공격자는 마음대로 poll_id를 변경할 수 있게 됩니다.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
확인되지 않은 입력을 URL에 연결하면 공격자가 요청 매개 변수의 값을 덮어쓸 수 있습니다. 공격자는 기존 매개 변수 값을 오버라이드하거나, 새 매개 변수를 삽입하거나, 직접 연결로부터 변수를 익스플로이트할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
HPP(HTTP Parameter Pollution) 공격은 인코딩된 쿼리 문자열 구분 기호를 다른 기존 매개 변수에 삽입하는 공격으로 구성됩니다. 웹 응용 프로그램이 사용자 입력을 제대로 정화하지 않으면 악의적인 사용자가 응용 프로그램의 로직을 침해하여 클라이언트 쪽 또는 서버 쪽 공격을 수행할 수 있습니다. 추가 매개 변수를 웹 응용 프로그램에 전송하고 이러한 매개 변수의 이름이 기존 매개 변수와 동일할 경우 웹 응용 프로그램은 다음과 같은 반응 중 하나를 보일 수 있습니다.

첫 번째 매개 변수의 데이터만 받아들일 수 있습니다.
마지막 매개 변수의 데이터를 받아들일 수 있습니다.
모든 매개 변수의 데이터를 받아들이고 서로 연결할 수 있습니다.


예를 들어, 다음과 같습니다.
- ASP.NET/IIS는 매개 변수의 모든 항목을 사용합니다.
- Apache Tomcat은 첫 번째 항목만 사용하고 나머지 항목은 무시합니다.
- mod_perl/Apache는 값을 값 배열로 변환합니다.

예제 1: 응용 프로그램 서버 및 응용 프로그램 자체의 로직에 따라 다음 요청이 인증 시스템에 혼란을 야기할 수 있으며 공격자가 다른 사용자로 가장할 수 있습니다.
http://www.server.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

예제 2: 다음 코드는 HTTP 요청의 입력을 사용하여 두 개의 하이퍼링크를 렌더링합니다.


<%
...
$id = $_GET["id"];
header("Location: http://www.host.com/election.php?poll_id=" . $id);
...
%>


URL: http://www.host.com/election.php?poll_id=4567
Link1: <a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=white">Vote for Mr. White<a>
Link2: <a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green">Vote for Mrs. Green<a>

프로그래머는 공격자가 "4567&candidate=green"과 같은 poll_id를 제공해 결과 페이지에 다음의 삽입된 링크를 포함하고 이로 인해 첫 번째 매개 변수를 선택하는 응용 프로그램 서버에서 항상 Mrs. Green이 투표될 가능성을 고려하지 않았습니다.
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=white">Vote for Mr. White<a>
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=green">Vote for Mrs. Green<a>
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
확인되지 않은 입력을 URL에 연결하면 공격자가 요청 매개 변수의 값을 덮어쓸 수 있습니다. 공격자는 기존 매개 변수 값을 오버라이드하거나, 새 매개 변수를 삽입하거나, 직접 연결로부터 변수를 익스플로이트할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
HPP(HTTP Parameter Pollution) 공격은 인코딩된 쿼리 문자열 구분 기호를 다른 기존 매개 변수에 삽입하는 공격으로 구성됩니다. 웹 응용 프로그램이 사용자 입력을 제대로 정화하지 않으면 악의적인 사용자가 응용 프로그램의 로직을 침해하여 클라이언트 쪽 또는 서버 쪽 공격을 수행할 수 있습니다. 추가 매개 변수를 웹 응용 프로그램에 전송하고 이러한 매개 변수의 이름이 기존 매개 변수와 동일할 경우 웹 응용 프로그램은 다음과 같은 반응 중 하나를 보일 수 있습니다.

첫 번째 매개 변수의 데이터만 받아들일 수 있습니다.
마지막 매개 변수의 데이터를 받아들일 수 있습니다.
모든 매개 변수의 데이터를 받아들이고 서로 연결할 수 있습니다.


예를 들어, 다음과 같습니다.
- ASP.NET/IIS는 매개 변수의 모든 항목을 사용합니다.
- Apache Tomcat은 첫 번째 항목만 사용하고 나머지 항목은 무시합니다.
- mod_perl/Apache는 값을 값 배열로 변환합니다.

예제 1: 응용 프로그램 서버 및 응용 프로그램 자체의 로직에 따라 다음 요청은 authentication 시스템에 혼란을 일으켜 공격자가 다른 사용자로 가장할 수 있게 만듭니다.
http://www.server.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

여기서 볼 수 있듯이 공격자는 이미 name=alice를 지정했지만 name=alice&를 더 추가했으며, 첫 번째 것을 가져오는 서버에서 이것이 사용되면 alice로 가장하여 이 사용자의 계정에 대한 추가 정보를 획득할 수 있습니다.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
응용 프로그램에서 타사 키보드 확장의 설치를 허용합니다.
Explanation
키보드 확장이 사용자가 입력하는 모든 키 입력을 읽을 수 있습니다. 타사 키보드는 일반적으로 텍스트 입력을 간편하게 하거나 추가적인 이모지를 추가하는 데 사용되는데, 사용자가 입력하는 사항을 로그하거나 이를 원격 서버로 보내서 처리할 수도 있습니다. 악의적 키보드가 키로거 역할을 하도록 배포되어 사용자가 입력하는 모든 키를 읽어서 자격 증명이나 신용 카드 번호와 같은 민감한 데이터를 훔칠 수 있습니다.
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] UIApplicationDelegate Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 522, CWE ID 829
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 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), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-3
desc.structural.objc.input_interception_keyboard_extensions_allowed
Abstract
응용 프로그램에서 타사 키보드 확장의 설치를 허용합니다.
Explanation
키보드 확장이 사용자가 입력하는 모든 키 입력을 읽을 수 있습니다. 타사 키보드는 일반적으로 텍스트 입력을 간편하게 하거나 추가적인 이모지를 추가하는 데 사용되는데, 사용자가 입력하는 사항을 로그하거나 이를 원격 서버로 보내서 처리할 수도 있습니다. 악의적 키보드가 키로거 역할을 하도록 배포되어 사용자가 입력하는 모든 키를 읽어서 자격 증명이나 신용 카드 번호와 같은 민감한 데이터를 훔칠 수 있습니다.
References
[1] UIApplicationDelegate Apple
[2] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 522, CWE ID 829
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 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), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-3
desc.structural.swift.input_interception_keyboard_extensions_allowed
Abstract
개체 반환 LDAP 검색을 수행하는 응용 프로그램에서는 공격자가 LDAP 응답을 제어하여 서버에서 임의의 코드를 실행할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
공격자는 미사용 항목을 수정하거나 이동 중인 응답을 가로채고 수정하여(MiTM(Man-in-The-Middle) 공격) 특수한 Java 속성을 LDAP 항목에 주입하는 방법으로 LDAP 응답을 조작할 수 있습니다. 개체 반환 검색을 수행할 때 Java 속성은 Java 역직렬화 또는 JNDI 역참조를 사용하여 Java 개체로 디코딩되므로 공격자는 검색을 통해 응용 프로그램 서버에서 원격 코드를 실행할 수 있습니다.

이 응용 프로그램은 search 메서드로 전달되는 javax.naming.directory.SearchControls 인스턴스에서 returningObjectFlagtrue로 설정하거나 이 플래그를 대신 설정해 주는 라이브러리 함수를 사용하여 개체 반환 검색을 수행합니다.

이런 경우 응용 프로그램은 Spring Security LDAP 인증 모듈을 사용하는데, 이것은 개체 반환 검색을 수행하기 때문에 LDAP Entry Poisoning에 취약합니다.

예제: 다음 Beans 구성 파일은 응용 프로그램이 Spring Security LDAP 모듈을 인증 공급자로 사용하도록 구성합니다.


<beans ... >
<authentication-manager>
<ldap-authentication-provider
user-search-filter="(uid={0})"
user-search-base="ou=users,dc=example,dc=org"
group-search-filter="(uniqueMember={0})"
group-search-base="ou=groups,dc=example,dc=org"
group-role-attribute="cn"
role-prefix="ROLE_">
</ldap-authentication-provider>
</authentication-manager>
</beans>
References
[1] Introducing JNDI Injection and LDAP Entry Poisoning OpenText Fortify
[2] A Journey from JNDI/LDAP manipulation to remote code execution dream land BlackHat
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 20
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[16] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[17] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[18] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] 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)
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[39] 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
[40] 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
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
desc.configuration.java.ldap_entry_poisoning
Abstract
chroot()와 같은 작업을 수행하는 데 필요한 높은 수준의 권한은 작업을 수행한 직후 삭제해야 합니다.
Explanation
프로그램이 chroot() 등의 권한 있는 함수를 호출하려면 먼저 root 권한을 획득해야 합니다. 권한 있는 작업이 완료되자 마자 프로그램은 root 권한을 삭제하고 호출한 사용자의 권한 수준으로 돌아가야 합니다.
예제: 다음 코드는 공격자가 프로그램을 사용하여 다른 곳에 있는 파일에 무단으로 접근하는 것을 방지하기 위해 chroot()를 호출하여 응용 프로그램을 APP_HOME 밑의 파일 시스템의 부분 집합으로 제한합니다. 그런 다음 코드는 사용자가 지정한 파일을 열고 파일의 내용을 처리합니다.


...
chroot(APP_HOME);
chdir("/");

FILE* data = fopen(argv[1], "r+");
...


파일을 열기 전에 프로세스를 응용 프로그램의 홈 디렉터리 내부로 제한하는 것은 훌륭한 보안 대책입니다. 하지만 0이 아닌 값으로 setuid()를 호출하지 않으면 응용 프로그램이 계속 불필요한 root 권한으로 동작하게 됩니다. 악의적인 연산이 수퍼유저 권한으로 수행되기 때문에 공격자가 응용 프로그램에 대한 익스플로이트에 성공하면 권한 상승 공격이 일어날 수 있습니다. 응용 프로그램이 root 사용자가 아닌 권한 수준으로 떨어지면 피해 가능성이 대폭 줄어듭니다.
References
[1] A. Chuvakin Using Chroot Securely
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 272
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege, CM-7 Least Functionality
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.3 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.4.3 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.controlflow.cpp.least_privilege_violation
Abstract
신뢰할 수 없는 소스에서 나온 IMAP 명령을 실행하면 IMAP 서버가 공격자 대신 악의적인 명령을 실행할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
IMAP 명령 삽입 취약점은 공격자가 IMAP 메일 서버로 전송되는 명령에 영향을 미칠 수 있을 때 발생합니다.

1. 신뢰할 수 없는 소스에서 데이터가 응용 프로그램에 입력됩니다.

2. 데이터는 응용 프로그램이 실행하는 명령을 나타내는 문자열 또는 문자열의 일부로 사용됩니다.

3. 공격자는 IMAP 명령을 실행함으로써 서버가 스팸 발송과 같은 악의적 작업을 수행하도록 명령할 수 있습니다.

예제 1: 다음 코드는 HTTP 요청 매개 변수를 사용하여 IMAP 서버로 전송되는 CREATE 명령을 만듭니다. 공격자는 이 매개 변수를 사용하여 서버로 전송되는 명령을 수정하고 CRLF 문자를 사용하여 새 명령을 삽입할 수 있습니다.


...
final String foldername = request.getParameter("folder");
IMAPFolder folder = (IMAPFolder) store.getFolder("INBOX");
...
folder.doCommand(new IMAPFolder.ProtocolCommand() {
@Override
public Object doCommand(IMAPProtocol imapProtocol) throws ProtocolException {
try {
imapProtocol.simpleCommand("CREATE " + foldername, null);
} catch (Exception e) {
// Handle Exception
}
return null;
}
});
...
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.java.mail_command_injection_imap
Abstract
신뢰할 수 없는 소스에서 만들어진 POP3 IMAP 명령을 실행하면 POP3 서버가 공격자 대신 악의적인 명령을 실행할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
POP3 명령 삽입 취약점은 공격자가 POP3 메일 서버로 전송되는 명령에 영향을 미칠 수 있을 때 발생합니다.

1. 신뢰할 수 없는 소스에서 데이터가 응용 프로그램에 입력됩니다.

2. 데이터는 응용 프로그램이 실행하는 명령을 나타내는 문자열 또는 문자열의 일부로 사용됩니다.

3. 공격자는 POP3 명령을 실행함으로써 서버가 스팸 발송과 같은 악의적 작업을 수행하도록 명령할 수 있습니다.

예제 1: 다음 코드는 HTTP 요청 매개 변수를 사용하여 POP3 서버로 전송되는 USERPASS 명령을 만듭니다. 공격자는 이 매개 변수를 사용하여 서버로 전송되는 명령을 수정하고 CRLF 문자를 사용하여 새 명령을 삽입할 수 있습니다.


...
String username = request.getParameter("username");
String password = request.getParameter("password");
...
POP3SClient pop3 = new POP3SClient(proto, false);
pop3.login(username, password)
...
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.java.mail_command_injection_pop3
Abstract
신뢰할 수 없는 소스에서 SMTP 명령을 실행하면 SMTP 서버가 공격자 대신 악의적인 명령을 실행할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
이러한 유형의 취약성은 다음과 같은 경우에 발생할 수 있습니다. 공격자가 SMTP 메일 서버로 전송되는 명령에 영향을 줄 수 있는 경우 SMTP Command Injection 취약성이 발생합니다.
1. 신뢰할 수 없는 소스에서 데이터가 응용 프로그램에 입력됩니다.

2. 데이터는 응용 프로그램이 실행하는 명령을 나타내는 문자열 또는 문자열의 일부로 사용됩니다.

3. 공격자는 SMTP 명령을 실행하여 서버에 스팸 전송과 같은 악의적인 작업을 수행하도록 지시할 수 있습니다.
예제 1: 다음 코드는 HTTP 요청 매개 변수를 사용하여 SMTP 서버로 전송되는 VRFY 명령을 작성합니다. 공격자는 이 매개 변수를 사용하여 서버로 전송된 명령을 수정하고 CRLF 문자를 사용하는 새 명령을 주입할 수 있습니다.

...
c, err := smtp.Dial(x)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
user := request.FormValue("USER")
c.Verify(user)
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 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 - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.golang.mail_command_injection_smtp
Abstract
신뢰할 수 없는 소스에서 만들어진 SMTP 명령을 실행하면 SMTP 서버가 공격자 대신 악의적인 명령을 실행할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
SMTP 명령 삽입 취약점은 공격자가 SMTP 메일 서버로 전송되는 명령에 영향을 미칠 수 있을 때 발생합니다.

1. 신뢰할 수 없는 소스에서 데이터가 응용 프로그램에 입력됩니다.

2. 데이터는 응용 프로그램이 실행하는 명령을 나타내는 문자열 또는 문자열의 일부로 사용됩니다.

3. 공격자는 SMTP 명령을 실행함으로써 서버가 스팸 발송과 같은 악의적 작업을 수행하도록 명령할 수 있습니다.

예제 1: 다음 코드는 HTTP 요청 매개 변수를 사용하여 SMTP 서버로 전송되는 VRFY 명령을 만듭니다. 공격자는 이 매개 변수를 사용하여 서버로 전송되는 명령을 수정하고 CRLF 문자를 사용하여 새 명령을 삽입할 수 있습니다.


...
String user = request.getParameter("user");
SMTPSSLTransport transport = new SMTPSSLTransport(session,new URLName(Utilities.getProperty("smtp.server")));
transport.connect(Utilities.getProperty("smtp.server"), username, password);
transport.simpleCommand("VRFY " + user);
...
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.java.mail_command_injection_smtp
Abstract
신뢰할 수 없는 소스에서 만들어진 SMTP 명령을 실행하면 SMTP 서버가 공격자 대신 악의적인 명령을 실행할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
SMTP 명령 삽입 취약점은 공격자가 SMTP 메일 서버로 전송되는 명령에 영향을 미칠 수 있을 때 발생합니다.

1. 신뢰할 수 없는 소스에서 데이터가 응용 프로그램에 입력됩니다.

2. 데이터는 응용 프로그램이 실행하는 명령을 나타내는 문자열 또는 문자열의 일부로 사용됩니다.

3. 공격자는 SMTP 명령을 실행함으로써 서버가 스팸 발송과 같은 악의적 작업을 수행하도록 명령할 수 있습니다.

예제 1: 다음 코드는 HTTP 요청 매개 변수를 사용하여 SMTP 서버로 전송되는 VRFY 명령을 만듭니다. 공격자는 이 매개 변수를 사용하여 서버로 전송되는 명령을 수정하고 CRLF 문자를 사용하여 새 명령을 삽입할 수 있습니다.


...
user = request.GET['user']
session = smtplib.SMTP(smtp_server, smtp_tls_port)
session.ehlo()
session.starttls()
session.login(username, password)
session.docmd("VRFY", user)
...
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.python.mail_command_injection_smtp
Abstract
프로그램이 null을 반환하는 함수의 반환 값을 확인하지 않으므로 null 포인터를 역참조할 수도 있습니다.
Explanation
소프트웨어에 대한 대부분의 심각한 공격은 프로그래머의 가정 위반에서 비롯됩니다. 공격 후, 프로그래머의 가정은 취약하고 근거가 빈약해 보이지만 공격 전에는 많은 프로그래머가 열심히 자신의 가정을 옹호하게 마련입니다.

코드에서 흔히 발견되는 두 가지 의심스런 가정은 "이 함수 호출은 절대 실패하지 않는다" 및 "이 함수 호출이 실패해도 상관 없다"입니다. 프로그래머가 함수의 반환 값을 무시하는 경우 암시적으로 이 가정 중 하나에 따라 동작하는 것으로 볼 수 있습니다.
예제 1: 다음 코드는 멤버 함수 Equals()를 호출하기 전에 Item 속성이 반환한 문자열이 null인지 검사하지 않기 때문에 null dereference가 발생할 수 있습니다.


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


이 코딩 오류에 대한 전형적인 변명은 이렇습니다.

“요청한 값이 항상 존재한다는 것을 알고 있습니다. 왜냐하면... 값이 존재하지 않는 경우, 프로그램이 필요한 동작을 수행할 수 없기 때문에 오류 처리 여부가 중요하지 않거나 프로그램이 null 값을 역참조하다가 중지해도 상관 없습니다.”

하지만 공격자는 프로그램에서 예기치 못한 경로를 찾아내는 데 능숙하며 예외와 관련이 있는 경우가 대표적인 예입니다.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 253, CWE ID 690
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[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)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.dotnet.missing_check_against_null
Abstract
프로그램이 null을 반환하는 함수의 반환 값을 확인하지 않으므로 null 포인터를 역참조할 수도 있습니다.
Explanation
소프트웨어에 대한 대부분의 심각한 공격은 프로그래머의 가정 위반에서 비롯됩니다. 공격 후, 프로그래머의 가정은 취약하고 근거가 빈약해 보이지만 공격 전에는 많은 프로그래머가 열심히 자신의 가정을 옹호하게 마련입니다.

코드에서 흔히 발견되는 두 가지 의심스런 가정은 "이 함수 호출은 절대 실패하지 않는다" 및 "이 함수 호출이 실패해도 상관 없다"입니다. 프로그래머가 함수의 반환 값을 무시하는 경우 암시적으로 이 가정 중 하나에 따라 동작하는 것으로 볼 수 있습니다.
예제 1: 다음 코드는 malloc()이 반환하는 포인터를 사용하기 전에 메모리 할당이 성공했는지 확인하지 않습니다.


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


이 코딩 오류에 대한 전형적인 변명은 이렇습니다.

“내 프로그램은 메모리가 부족하면 중단됩니다. NULL 포인터를 역참조하려고 할 때 프로그램이 조각화 오류로 중단되도록 내버려두든 오류를 처리하든 중요하지 않습니다.”

이 주장은 다음과 같은 세 가지 중요한 고려 사항을 무시하고 있습니다.

- 응용 프로그램의 종류와 크기에 따라 다른 곳에서 사용 중인 메모리를 해제하여 프로그램 실행을 계속할 수 있습니다.

- 프로그램에서 필요에 따라 정상 종료를 수행하는 것은 불가능합니다. 프로그램에서 최소 단위 작업을 수행하는 경우 시스템이 불일치 상태가 될 수 있습니다.

- 프로그래머가 진단 정보를 기록할 기회를 상실합니다. req_size가 너무 크거나 동시에 처리해야 할 요청이 너무 많아서 malloc() 호출이 실패했습니까? 또는 시간이 흐르면서 누적된 memory leak 때문에 발생했습니까? 오류를 처리하지 않고는 알 방법이 없습니다.
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 253, CWE ID 690
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.missing_check_against_null
Abstract
프로그램이 null을 반환하는 함수의 반환 값을 확인하지 않으므로 null 포인터를 역참조할 수도 있습니다.
Explanation
소프트웨어에 대한 대부분의 심각한 공격은 프로그래머의 가정 위반에서 비롯됩니다. 공격 후, 프로그래머의 가정은 취약하고 근거가 빈약해 보이지만 공격 전에는 많은 프로그래머가 열심히 자신의 가정을 옹호하게 마련입니다.

코드에서 흔히 발견되는 두 가지 의심스런 가정은 "이 함수 호출은 절대 실패하지 않는다" 및 "이 함수 호출이 실패해도 상관 없다"입니다. 프로그래머가 함수의 반환 값을 무시하는 경우 암시적으로 이 가정 중 하나에 따라 동작하는 것으로 볼 수 있습니다.

예제 1: 다음 코드는 멤버 함수 compareTo()를 호출하기 전에 getParameter()가 반환한 문자열이 null인지 검사하지 않기 때문에 null dereference가 발생할 수 있습니다.


String itemName = request.getParameter(ITEM_NAME);
if (itemName.compareTo(IMPORTANT_ITEM)) {
...
}
...
예제 2: 다음 코드는 null로 설정되면 해당 속성이 항상 정의된다는 잘못된 가정을 하는 프로그래머가 역참조하는 시스템 속성을 보여줍니다.


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


이 코딩 오류에 대한 전형적인 변명은 이렇습니다.

“요청한 값이 항상 존재한다는 것을 알고 있습니다. 왜냐하면... 값이 존재하지 않는 경우, 프로그램이 필요한 동작을 수행할 수 없기 때문에 오류 처리 여부가 중요하지 않거나 프로그램이 null 값을 역참조하다가 중지해도 상관 없습니다.”

하지만 공격자는 프로그램에서 예기치 못한 경로를 찾아내는 데 능숙하며 예외와 관련이 있는 경우가 대표적인 예입니다.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 253, CWE ID 690
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[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)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.missing_check_against_null
Abstract
프로그램이 null 포인터를 역참조할 가능성이 있기 때문에 NullException이 발생합니다.
Explanation
Null 포인터 오류는 주로 프로그래머 가정을 하나 이상 위반한 결과로 발생합니다.

대부분의 null 포인터 문제는 일반적으로 소프트웨어 신뢰도 문제를 야기하지만 공격자가 의도적으로 null 포인터 역참조를 실행할 수 있는 경우 그 결과 발생하는 예외 사항을 사용하여 보안 로직을 무시하거나 차후의 공격을 계획하는 데 유용한 디버깅 정보를 응용 프로그램이 노출하도록 할 수 있습니다.

예제 1: 다음 코드에서 프로그래머는 시스템에 항상 “cmd”라는 속성이 정의되어 있다고 가정합니다. 공격자가 “cmd”가 정의되지 않도록 프로그램의 환경을 제어하게 되면 프로그램이 Trim() 메서드를 호출하려 할 때 null 포인터 예외 사항이 발생합니다.


string cmd = null;
...
cmd = Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("cmd");
cmd = cmd.Trim();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 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 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.dotnet.null_dereference
Abstract
프로그램이 null 포인터를 역참조할 가능성이 있기 때문에 조각화 오류가 발생합니다.
Explanation
Null 포인터 예외는 일반적으로 하나 이상의 프로그래머 가정을 위반했을 때 발생합니다. 이 문제는 최소한 역참조 후 검사(check-after-dereference), 검사 후 역참조(dereference-after-check) 및 저장 후 역참조(dereference-after-store)라는 세 가지 문제를 유발합니다. 역참조 후 검사(check-after-dereference) 오류는 포인터가 null인지 검사하기 전에 null이 될 수 있는 포인터를 역참조할 경우 발생합니다. 검사 후 역참조(dereference-after-check) 오류는 프로그램이 null인지 여부를 명시적으로 검사하지만, null인 것으로 알려진 포인터를 역참조할 때 발생합니다. 이 유형의 오류는 철자 오류 또는 프로그래머의 실수로 발생합니다. 저장 후 역참조(dereference-after-store) 오류는 프로그램이 명시적으로 포인터를 null로 설정하고 이를 나중에 역참조할 경우에 발생합니다. 이 오류는 프로그래머가 선언된 상태의 변수를 null로 초기화하여 발생하는 경우가 많습니다.

대부분의 null 포인터 문제는 일반적인 소프트웨어 신뢰도 문제를 야기하지만 공격자가 의도적으로 null 포인터 역참조를 실행할 수 있는 경우 그 결과 발생하는 예외 사항을 활용함으로써 보안 로직을 무시하여 Denial Of Service(DoS) 공격을 가하거나 차후의 공격을 계획하는 데 유용한 디버깅 정보를 응용 프로그램이 노출하도록 할 수 있습니다.

예제 1: 다음 코드에서 프로그래머는 변수 ptrNULL이 아닌 것으로 가정합니다. 이 가정은 프로그래머가 포인터를 역참조하면 명시적인 것이 됩니다. 프로그래머가 NULL에 대해 ptr을 검사하면 이 가정이 반박됩니다. if문에서 검사할 때 ptrNULL이 되면 역참조될 때도 NULL이 되어 조각화 오류가 발생할 수 있습니다.


ptr->field = val;
...
if (ptr != NULL) {
...
}
예제 2: 다음 코드에서 프로그래머는 변수 ptrNULL임을 확인한 다음 실수로 역참조합니다. if문에서 검사할 때 ptrNULL이면 null dereference가 발생하여 조각화 오류가 일어납니다.


if (ptr == null) {
ptr->field = val;
...
}
예제 3: 다음 코드에서 프로그래머는 '\0' 문자열이 실제로 0 또는 NULL인 것을 잊고 null 포인터를 역참조하여 조각화 오류가 일어납니다.


if (ptr == '\0') {
*ptr = val;
...
}
예제 4: 다음 코드에서 프로그래머는 명시적으로 변수 ptrNULL로 설정합니다. 나중에 프로그래머는 개체의 null 값을 검사하기 전에 ptr를 역참조합니다.


*ptr = NULL;
...
ptr->field = val;
...
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 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 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.null_dereference
Abstract
프로그램이 null 포인터를 역참조할 가능성이 있기 때문에 NullPointerException이 발생합니다.
Explanation
Null 포인터 오류는 주로 프로그래머 가정을 하나 이상 위반한 결과로 발생합니다.

대부분의 null 포인터 문제는 일반적으로 소프트웨어 신뢰도 문제를 야기하지만 공격자가 의도적으로 null 포인터 역참조를 실행할 수 있는 경우 그 결과 발생하는 예외 사항을 사용하여 보안 로직을 무시하거나 차후의 공격을 계획하는 데 유용한 디버깅 정보를 응용 프로그램이 노출하도록 할 수 있습니다.

예제: 다음 코드에서 프로그래머는 시스템에 항상 “cmd”라는 속성이 정의되어 있다고 가정합니다. 공격자가 “cmd”가 정의되지 않도록 프로그램의 환경을 제어하게 되면 프로그램이 trim() 메서드를 호출하려 할 때 null 포인터 예외 사항이 발생합니다.


String val = null;
...
cmd = System.getProperty("cmd");
if (cmd)
val = util.translateCommand(cmd);
...
cmd = val.trim();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 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 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.null_dereference
Abstract
신뢰할 수 없는 데이터 병렬화는 임의 PHP 개체의 삽입을 허용하여 프로그램이 공격자 대신 악성 명령을 실행하도록 야기할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
Object injection 취약점은 unserialize() 함수로 전달되기 전에 신뢰할 수 없는 데이터가 올바르게 정화되지 않는 경우 발생합니다. 공격자는 취약한 unserialize() 호출에 특히 수동으로 직렬화한 문자열을 전달할 수 있어 응용 프로그램 영역에서 임의 PHP object injection을 야기합니다. 이 취약점의 심각도는 응용 프로그램 영역에서 사용 가능한 클래스에 따라 달라집니다. __wakeup 또는 __destruct 같은 PHP 매직 메서드를 구현하는 클래스는 이러한 메서드 내에서 코드를 수행할 수 있으므로 공격자가 관심을 갖기 쉽습니다.

예제 1: 다음 코드는 __destruct() 매직 메서드를 구현하고 클래스 속성으로 정의된 시스템 명령을 실행하는 PHP 클래스를 보여줍니다. 또한 사용자 공급 데이터가 포함된 unserialize()에 대한 불안정한 호출도 있습니다.


...
class SomeAvailableClass {
public $command=null;
public function __destruct() {
system($this->command);
}
}
...
$user = unserialize($_GET['user']);
...
Example 1에서 응용 프로그램은 직렬화된 User 개체를 예상하지만 공격자는 command 속성을 위해 사전 정의된 값으로 SomeAvailableClass의 직렬화된 버전을 실제로 제공할 수 있습니다.


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


소멸자 메서드는 $user 개체에 대한 다른 참조가 없을 때 즉시 호출되며 공격자가 제공한 명령을 실행합니다.

공격자는 취약한 unserialize()가 "속성 지향 프로그래밍"이라는 기술을 사용하여 호출된 경우 선언된 다른 클래스를 연결할 수 있습니다. "속성 지향 프로그래밍"은 BlackHat 2010 컨퍼런스에서 Stefan Esser가 소개한 기술입니다. 이 기술을 통해 공격자는 고유한 페이로드를 만들도록 기존의 코드를 재사용할 수 있습니다.
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 - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[25] 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)
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.object_injection
Abstract
신뢰할 수 없는 데이터를 역직렬화하면 임의 Ruby 개체의 삽입을 허용하여 프로그램이 공격자 대신 악성 명령을 실행하도록 야기할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
Object injection 취약점은 YAML.load() 같은 데이터를 역직렬화하는 함수로 전달되기 전에 신뢰할 수 없는 데이터가 올바르게 정화되지 않는 경우에 발생합니다. 공격자가 특수하게 만들어진 직렬화된 문자열을 취약한 YAML.load() 호출에 전달하면 역직렬화 시 클래스가 응용 프로그램으로 로드되는 경우 임의의 Ruby 개체가 프로그램에 주입됩니다. 이렇게 되면 cross-site scripting 취약점을 찾기 위한 검증 로직을 우회하는 등의 다양한 공격 기회에 무방비 상태로 노출될 수 있으며, 하드코드된 값처럼 보이는 값을 통한 SQL Injection 공격이나 심지어 전체 코드 실행까지 발생할 수 있습니다.

예제 1: 다음 코드에서는 해당 속성을 사용하여 SQL 쿼리를 생성한 다음 데이터베이스에 대해 쿼리하는 Ruby 클래스를 보여 줍니다. 또한 사용자 공급 데이터가 포함된 YAML.load()에 대한 불안정한 호출도 있습니다.


...
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
...
Example 1에서 응용 프로그램은 print_details라는 함수가 포함되기도 하는 직렬화된 User 개체가 필요할 수 있지만 공격자는 실제로 해당 @id 속성 값이 미리 정의된 직렬화된 버전의 Transaction 개체를 제공할 수 있습니다. 따라서 다음과 같은 요청은 @id가 숫자 값인지 여부를 확인하려는 검증 검사를 우회하도록 허용할 수 있습니다.


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


이 요청의 디코딩된 버전을 확인하면 user 매개 변수에 !ruby/object:Transaction\nid:4 or 5=5\n가 할당되어 있음을 알 수 있습니다.
이제 사용자 매개 변수를 역직렬화하면 @id"4 or 5=5"로 설정된 Transaction 유형의 개체가 생성됩니다. 개발자는 User#print_details()를 호출하려고 하지만 이제 Transaction#print_details()를 호출하게 되며, Ruby의 문자열 보간은 SELECT * FROM transactions WHERE id=4 or 5=5 쿼리를 실행하도록 SQL 쿼리가 변경된다는 것을 의미하게 됩니다. 별도의 절이 추가되었기 때문에 쿼리는 true로 평가되며 transactions 테이블 내에서 개발자가 의도했던 단일 행 대신 모든 행을 반환하게 됩니다.

공격자는 취약한 YAML.load()가 "속성 지향 프로그래밍"이라는 기술을 사용하여 호출된 경우 선언된 다른 클래스를 연결할 수 있습니다. "속성 지향 프로그래밍"은 BlackHat 2010 컨퍼런스에서 Stefan Esser가 소개한 기술입니다. 이 기술을 통해 공격자는 고유한 페이로드를 만들도록 기존의 코드를 재사용할 수 있습니다.
References
[1] HD Moore Serialization Mischief in Ruby Land (CVE-2013-0156)
[2] Ruby Ruby Security
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 502
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [23] CWE ID 502
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [21] CWE ID 502
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [13] CWE ID 502
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [12] CWE ID 502
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [15] CWE ID 502
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A8 Insecure Deserialization
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[25] 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)
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 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 Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.object_injection
Abstract
clone() 메서드는 super.clone()을 호출하여 새 개체를 얻어야 합니다.
Explanation
모든 clone() 구현은 super.clone()을 호출하여 새 개체를 얻어야 합니다. 클래스가 이 규칙을 지키지 않으면 하위 클래스의 clone() 메서드가 잘못된 형식의 개체를 반환합니다.


예제 1: 다음 두 클래스는 super.clone()을 호출하지 않아서 발생하는 버그를 보여 줍니다. Kibitzerclone()을 구현하는 방법으로 인해 FancyKibitzer의 clone 메서드는 FancyKibitzer 대신 Kibitzer 유형의 개체를 반환합니다.


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 - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 580
desc.structural.java.object_model_violation_erroneous_clone_method
Abstract
이 클래스는 Equals()GetHashCode() 중 하나만 정의합니다.
Explanation
.NET 개체는 수많은 동등한 관련 규칙을 따라야 합니다. 이 규칙 중 하나는 같은 개체는 같은 해시코드를 가져야 한다는 것입니다. 즉, a.Equals(b) == true이면 a.GetHashCode() == b.GetHashCode()이어야 합니다.

이 규칙을 지키지 않으면 이 클래스의 개체를 컬렉션(collection)에 저장하는 경우 문제가 발생하기 쉽습니다. 해당 클래스의 개체가 해시 테이블의 키로 사용되거나 Dictionary에 삽입되는 경우, 반드시 같은 개체는 같은 해시코드를 가져야 합니다.

예제 1: 다음 클래스는 Equals()를 오버라이드하지만 GetHashCode()는 오버라이드하지 않습니다.


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 - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 581
desc.structural.dotnet.object_model_violation.just_one_of_equals_hashcode_defined
Abstract
이 클래스는 equals()hashCode() 중 하나만 정의합니다.
Explanation
Java 개체는 수많은 동등한 관련 규칙을 따라야 합니다. 이 규칙 중 하나는 같은 개체는 같은 해시코드를 가져야 한다는 것입니다. 즉, a.equals(b) == true이면 a.hashCode() == b.hashCode()이어야 합니다.

이 규칙을 지키지 않으면 이 클래스의 개체를 컬렉션(collection)에 저장하는 경우 문제가 발생하기 쉽습니다. 해당 클래스의 개체가 해시 테이블의 키로 사용되거나 Map 또는 Set에 삽입되는 경우, 반드시 같은 개체는 같은 해시코드를 가져야 합니다.

예제 1: 다음 클래스는 equals()를 오버라이드하지만 hashCode()는 오버라이드하지 않습니다.


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 - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 581
desc.structural.java.object_model_violation_just_one_of_equals_hashcode_defined
Abstract
이 클래스는 saveState()restoreState() 중 하나만 정의합니다.
Explanation
StateHolder 인터페이스를 상속 받는 모든 클래스는 saveState(javax.faces.context.FacesContext)restoreState(javax.faces.context.FacesContext, java.lang.Object)를 구현하거나 둘 다 구현하지 않아야 합니다. 이 두 가지 메서드는 밀접한 관계가 있으므로 상속 계층의 서로 다른 수준에 saveState(javax.faces.context.FacesContext)restoreState(javax.faces.context.FacesContext, java.lang.Object) 메서드를 두는 것은 허용되지 않습니다.

예제 1: 다음 클래스는 saveState()를 정의해도 restoreState()는 정의하지 않으므로 해당 클래스를 확장하는 클래스의 모든 작업에서 항상
오류가 발생합니다.

public class KibitzState implements StateHolder {
public Object saveState(FacesContext fc) {
...
}
}
References
[1] Sun Microsystems JavaDoc for StateHolder Interface
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
desc.structural.java.object_model_violation_just_one_of_restoreState_saveState_defined
Abstract
checkCallingOrSelfPermission() 또는 checkCallingOrSelfUriPermission() 함수는 필요한 권한이 없거나 권한이 전혀 없는 호출 프로그램이 해당 응용 프로그램의 권한을 사용하여 권한 검사를 우회할 수 있도록 하므로 조심해서 사용해야 합니다.
Explanation
checkCallingOrSelfPermission() 또는 checkCallingOrSelfUriPermission() 함수는 호출 프로그램이 특정 서비스 또는 지정된 URI에 액세스하는 데 필요한 권한이 있는지 확인합니다. 그러나 이러한 함수는 해당 응용 프로그램 권한을 가정하여 적절한 권한이 없는 악성 응용 프로그램에 액세스 권한을 부여할 수 있으므로 조심해서 사용해야 합니다.

다시 말해, 적절한 권한이 없기 때문에 리소스에 대한 접근이 거부되어야 하는 악성 응용 프로그램이 해당 응용 프로그램의 권한을 사용하여 권한 검사를 우회할 수 있다는 것입니다. 이로 인해 confused deputy 공격이라고 하는 문제가 발생할 수 있습니다.
References
[1] Designing for Security Android
[2] Context: Android Developers Android
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 275
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[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 - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.5 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] 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
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 863
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.structural.java.often_misused_android_permission_check
Abstract
이 코드는 호출자에게 특정 권한이 부여되는 것을 어설션하여 잠재적으로 공격자가 보안 제어를 무시할 수 있습니다.
Explanation
.NET Framework의 권한은 아래쪽으로 늘어나는 스택 트리 위로 올라가면서 작업하여 권한이 리소스에 액세스하는 데 충분히 설정되어 있는지 검사합니다. 개발자가 특정 권한으로 Assert()를 사용하면 현재 제어 흐름에 지정된 권한이 있다고 말할 수 있습니다. 이로 인해 필요한 권한이 충족되면 .NET Framework가 더 이상의 권한 검사를 수행하지 않습니다. 즉, Assert()를 호출하는 코드를 호출하는 코드가 필요한 권한을 갖지 않을 수 있습니다. 일부 경우에는 Assert()를 사용하는 것이 도움이 되지만 악의적인 사용자가 달리 권한이 없는 리소스를 제어할 수 있도록 허용할 때 취약점이 발생할 수 있습니다.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 275
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002039, CCI-002165
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), IA-11 Re-Authentication (P0)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.5 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] 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
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 863
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.dotnet.often_misused_asserting_permissions
Abstract
공격자가 DNS 항목을 스푸핑할 수 있습니다. 보안을 DNS 이름에 의존하지 마십시오.
Explanation
많은 DNS 서버가 스푸핑 공격에 취약하기 때문에 언젠가는 소프트웨어가 손상된 DNS 서버가 있는 환경에서 실행될 수도 있다고 가정해야 합니다. 공격자가 DNS 업데이트를 수행할 수 있게 되면(DNS 캐시 감염(cache-poisoning)이라고도 함) 네트워크 트래픽을 자신의 시스템을 통과하도록 라우팅하거나 자신의 IP 주소가 사용자 도메인의 일부로 보이도록 만듭니다. 시스템 보안을 DNS 이름에 맡길 수 없습니다.
예제: 다음 코드 샘플은 DNS 조회를 사용하여 인바운드 요청이 신뢰할 수 있는 호스트의 것인지 여부를 결정합니다. 공격자가 DNS 캐시를 감염시키면 신뢰할 수 있는 지위를 얻게 됩니다.


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


IP 주소는 DNS 이름보다는 신뢰할 수 있지만 역시 스푸핑될 수 있습니다. 공격자는 쉽게 자신들이 보내는 패킷의 원본 IP 주소를 위조할 수 있지만 응답 패킷은 위조된 IP 주소로 반환됩니다. 응답 패킷을 보려면 공격자는 피해자 시스템과 위조된 IP 주소 사이의 트래픽을 염탐해야 합니다. 공격자는 원하는 염탐을 수행하기 위해 보통 피해자 컴퓨터와 같은 서브넷에 있으려고 합니다. 공격자가 소스 라우팅을 사용하면 이 요구 사항을 피해 갈 수도 있지만 오늘날 인터넷의 상당 부분에서 소스 라우팅을 허용하지 않습니다. 간단히 말해, IP 주소 확인은 인증 기법의 필수적인 부분이기는 하지만 authentication에 필요한 유일한 요소는 아닙니다.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 247, CWE ID 292, CWE ID 558, CWE ID 807
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000877
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-11 Re-Authentication (P0), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-23 Session Authenticity
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A7 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A2 Broken Authentication
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3460 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3460 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3460 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3460 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3460 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3460 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3460 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.semantic.dotnet.often_misused_authentication
Abstract
getlogin() 함수는 스푸핑하기 쉽습니다. 함수가 반환하는 이름을 신뢰하지 마십시오.
Explanation
getlogin() 함수는 현재 터미널에 로그인한 사용자의 이름이 들어 있는 문자열을 반환하는 함수이지만 공격자가 getlogin()이 시스템에 로그인한 사용자의 이름을 반환하게 만들 수 있습니다. 보안 결정을 내릴 때 getlogin()이 반환하는 이름에 의존해서는 안 됩니다.
예제 1:다음 코드는 getlogin()에 의존하여 사용자에 대한 신뢰 여부를 결정합니다. 이 함수는 쉽게 조작할 수 있습니다.


pwd = getpwnam(getlogin());
if (isTrustedGroup(pwd->pw_gid)) {
allow();
} else {
deny();
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 247, CWE ID 292, CWE ID 558, CWE ID 807
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000877
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-11 Re-Authentication (P0), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-23 Session Authenticity
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A7 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A2 Broken Authentication
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3460 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3460 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3460 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3460 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3460 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3460 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3460 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.semantic.cpp.often_misused_authentication.getlogin
Abstract
공격자가 DNS 항목을 스푸핑할 수 있습니다. 보안을 DNS 이름에 의존하지 마십시오.
Explanation
많은 DNS 서버가 스푸핑 공격에 취약하기 때문에 언젠가는 소프트웨어가 손상된 DNS 서버가 있는 환경에서 실행될 수도 있다고 가정해야 합니다. 공격자가 DNS 업데이트를 수행할 수 있게 되면(DNS 캐시 감염(cache-poisoning)이라고도 함) 네트워크 트래픽을 자신의 시스템을 통과하도록 라우팅하거나 자신의 IP 주소가 사용자 도메인의 일부로 보이도록 만듭니다. 시스템 보안을 DNS 이름에 맡길 수 없습니다.
예제: 다음 코드는 DNS 조회를 사용하여 인바운드 요청이 신뢰할 수 있는 호스트의 것인지 여부를 결정합니다. 공격자가 DNS 캐시를 감염시키면 신뢰할 수 있는 지위를 얻게 됩니다.


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


IP 주소는 DNS 이름보다는 신뢰할 수 있지만 역시 스푸핑될 수 있습니다. 공격자는 쉽게 자신들이 보내는 패킷의 원본 IP 주소를 위조할 수 있지만 응답 패킷은 위조된 IP 주소로 반환됩니다. 응답 패킷을 보려면 공격자는 피해자 시스템과 위조된 IP 주소 사이의 트래픽을 염탐해야 합니다. 공격자는 원하는 염탐을 수행하기 위해 보통 피해자 컴퓨터와 같은 서브넷에 있으려고 합니다. 공격자가 소스 라우팅을 사용하면 이 요구 사항을 피해 갈 수도 있지만 오늘날 인터넷의 상당 부분에서 소스 라우팅을 허용하지 않습니다. 간단히 말해, IP 주소 확인은 인증 기법의 필수적인 부분이기는 하지만 authentication에 필요한 유일한 요소는 아닙니다.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 247, CWE ID 292, CWE ID 558, CWE ID 807
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000877
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-11 Re-Authentication (P0), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-23 Session Authenticity
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A7 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A2 Broken Authentication
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3460 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3460 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3460 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3460 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3460 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3460 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3460 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.semantic.java.often_misused_authentication
Abstract
함수가 시간의 프록시로 block.timestamp 또는 block.number를 사용합니다.
Explanation
개발자는 흔히 block.timestamp 또는 block.number에 연결된 값을 사용해 시간 종속 이벤트를 트리거합니다. 그런데 이러한 값은 대개 사용하기에 안전하지 않은 시간 정보를 제공하는 경우가 많습니다.

블록체인은 분산형 기술이므로 노드는 시간을 특정 수준까지만 동기화할 수 있습니다. block.timestamp를 사용하는 코드는 신뢰하기가 어려울 수 있으며 최악의 경우에는 악의적인 채굴자가 블록의 타임스탬프를 채굴에 유리하게 변경할 수도 있습니다.

block.number 사용 시에는 블록 간 시간(약 14초) 예측은 가능하지만 블록 시간이 일정하게 유지되지 않으며 네트워크 활동에 따라 달라질 수도 있습니다. 그러므로 block.number는 시간 관련 계산에서 안전하게 사용할 수 없습니다.

예제 1: 다음 코드는 block.number를 사용하여 일정 기간이 지난 후 자금을 잠금 해제합니다.


function withdraw() public {
require(users[msg.sender].amount > 0, 'no amount locked');
require(block.number >= users[msg.sender].unlockBlock, 'lock period not over');
uint amount = users[msg.sender].amount;
users[msg.sender].amount = 0;
(bool success, ) = msg.sender.call.value(amount)("");
require(success, 'transfer failed');
}
References
[1] Enterprise Ethereum Alliance Don't misuse block data
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-116
desc.structural.solidity.swc116