Reino: Input Validation and Representation
Problemas de validação e representação da entrada são causados por metacaracteres, codificações alternativas e representações numéricas. Confiar na entrada resulta em problemas de segurança. Os problemas incluem: “Buffer Overflows”, ataques de “Cross-Site Scripting”, “SQL Injection”, entre outros.
Integer Overflow
Abstract
Desconsiderar o estouro de inteiros pode resultar em erros de lógica ou buffer overflow.
Explanation
Erros de estouro de inteiros ocorrem quando um programa não considera o fato de que uma operação aritmética pode resultar em uma quantidade maior do que o valor máximo de um tipo de dados ou menor do que seu valor mínimo. Esses erros costumam causar problemas em funções de alocação de memória, nas quais a entrada do usuário passa por conversões implícitas entre valores signed e unsigned. Se um invasor puder fazer com que o programa aloque menos memória do que o necessário ou interprete um valor signed como unsigned em uma operação de memória, o programa poderá estar vulnerável ao estouro de buffer.
Exemplo 1: O seguinte trecho de código do OpenSSH 3.3 demonstra um caso clássico de estouro de inteiros:
Se
Exemplo 2: Esse exemplo processa a entrada do usuário formada por uma série de estruturas de comprimento variável. Os dois primeiros bytes de entrada determinam o tamanho da estrutura a ser processada.
O programador definiu um limite superior no tamanho da estrutura: se ele for maior que
Exemplo 1: O seguinte trecho de código do OpenSSH 3.3 demonstra um caso clássico de estouro de inteiros:
nresp = packet_get_int();
if (nresp > 0) {
response = xmalloc(nresp*sizeof(char*));
for (i = 0; i < nresp; i++)
response[i] = packet_get_string(NULL);
}
Se
nresp
tiver o valor 1073741824
e sizeof(char*)
tiver seu valor típico de 4
, ocorrerá o estouro do resultado da operação nresp*sizeof(char*)
, e o argumento para xmalloc()
será 0
. A maioria das implementações de malloc()
permitirá a alocação de um buffer de 0 byte, fazendo com que as iterações de loop subsequentes estourem o buffer de heap response
.Exemplo 2: Esse exemplo processa a entrada do usuário formada por uma série de estruturas de comprimento variável. Os dois primeiros bytes de entrada determinam o tamanho da estrutura a ser processada.
char* processNext(char* strm) {
char buf[512];
short len = *(short*) strm;
strm += sizeof(len);
if (len <= 512) {
memcpy(buf, strm, len);
process(buf);
return strm + len;
} else {
return -1;
}
}
O programador definiu um limite superior no tamanho da estrutura: se ele for maior que
512
, a entrada não será processada. O problema é que len
é um inteiro com sinal e, portanto, a verificação do comprimento máximo da estrutura é feita com inteiros com sinal, mas len
é convertido em um inteiro sem sinal na chamada para memcpy()
. Se len
for negativo, parecerá que a estrutura tem um tamanho apropriado (a ramificação if
será usada), mas a quantidade de memória copiada por memcpy()
será muito grande, e o invasor será capaz de estourar a pilha com dados em strm
.References
[1] blexim Basic Integer Overflows Phrack
[2] D. Plakosh Coding Flaws That Lead to Security Failures 2nd Annual Hampton University Information Assurance Symposium
[3] Les Hatton Safer C: Developing Software for High-integrity and Safety-critical Systems McGraw-Hill Companies
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 190, CWE ID 191
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [8] CWE ID 190
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [11] CWE ID 190
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [12] CWE ID 190
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [13] CWE ID 190
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [14] CWE ID 190
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020, [23] CWE ID 190
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 7.5, Rule 7.6, Rule 21.18
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1, Rule 5-19-1
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.3 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.5
[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 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 682
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 190
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 190
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-101
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Integer Overflows (WASC-03)
desc.dataflow.cpp.integer_overflow
Abstract
Não considerar o estouro de inteiros pode resultar em erros de lógica ou estouro de buffer.
Explanation
Erros de estouro de inteiros ocorrem quando um programa não considera o fato de que uma operação aritmética pode resultar em uma quantidade maior do que o valor máximo de um tipo de dados ou menor do que seu valor mínimo. Esses erros costumam causar problemas em funções de alocação de memória, nas quais a entrada do usuário passa por conversões implícitas entre valores signed e unsigned. Se um invasor puder fazer com que o programa aloque menos memória do que o necessário ou interprete um valor signed como unsigned em uma operação de memória, o programa poderá estar vulnerável ao estouro de buffer.
Exemplo 1: O trecho de código a seguir demonstra um caso clássico de estouro de inteiros:
Se
Exemplo 1: O trecho de código a seguir demonstra um caso clássico de estouro de inteiros:
77 accept-in PIC 9(10).
77 num PIC X(4) COMP-5. *> native 32-bit unsigned integer
77 mem-size PIC X(4) COMP-5.
...
ACCEPT accept-in
MOVE accept-in TO num
MULTIPLY 4 BY num GIVING mem-size
CALL "CBL_ALLOC_MEM" USING
mem-pointer
BY VALUE mem-size
BY VALUE 0
RETURNING status-code
END-CALL
Se
num
tiver o valor 1073741824
, o resultado da operação MULTIPLY 4 BY num
causará um estouro de inteiros, e o argumento mem-size
de malloc()
será 0
. A maioria das implementações de malloc()
permite a alocação de um buffer de 0 bytes, provocando o estouro do mem-pointer
do buffer da pilha em declarações subsequentes.References
[1] blexim Basic Integer Overflows Phrack
[2] D. Plakosh Coding Flaws That Lead to Security Failures 2nd Annual Hampton University Information Assurance Symposium
[3] Les Hatton Safer C: Developing Software for High-integrity and Safety-critical Systems McGraw-Hill Companies
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 190, CWE ID 191
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [8] CWE ID 190
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [11] CWE ID 190
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [12] CWE ID 190
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [13] CWE ID 190
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [14] CWE ID 190
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020, [23] CWE ID 190
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 7.5, Rule 7.6, Rule 21.18
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1, Rule 5-19-1
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.3 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.5
[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 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 682
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 190
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 190
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-101
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Integer Overflows (WASC-03)
desc.dataflow.cobol.integer_overflow