541 itens encontrados
Vulnerabilidades
Abstract
O associador de estrutura usado para associar os parâmetros da solicitação HTTP à classe de modelo não foi explicitamente configurado para permitir, ou proibir, certos atributos.
Explanation
Para facilitar o desenvolvimento e aumentar a produtividade, a maioria das estruturas moderna permite que um objeto seja instanciado automaticamente e preenchido com os parâmetros de solicitações HTTP cujos nomes correspondem a um atributo da classe a ser associada. A instanciação e o preenchimento automáticos de objetos acelera o desenvolvimento, mas podem provocar sérios problemas se forem implementados sem precauções. Qualquer atributo nas classes associadas, ou classes aninhadas, será automaticamente associado aos parâmetros de solicitações HTTP. Portanto, usuários mal-intencionados poderão atribuir um valor a qualquer atributo em classes vinculadas ou aninhadas, mesmo se que estas não estejam expostas ao cliente por meio de formulários da Web ou contratos de API.

Exemplo 1: Sem configuração adicional, o seguinte método de controlador MVC ASP.NET associará os parâmetros de solicitações HTTP a qualquer atributo nas classes RegisterModel ou Details:


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


Em que a classe RegisterModel é definida como:


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

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

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

public Details Details { get; set; }

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


e a classe Details é definida como:


public class Details
{
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
...
}
Exemplo 2: Ao usar TryUpdateModel() ou UpdateModel() em aplicativos ASP.NET MVC ou Web API, o associador de modelo tentará vincular automaticamente todos os parâmetros de solicitações HTTP por padrão:


public ViewResult Register()
{
var model = new RegisterModel();
TryUpdateModel<RegisterModel>(model);
return View("detail", model);
}
Exemplo 3: Em aplicativos ASP.NET Web Form, o associador do modelo tentará vincular automaticamente todos os parâmetros de solicitação HTTP ao usar TryUpdateModel() ouUpdateModel() com a interface IValueProvider.

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


e a classe Employee é definida como:


public class Employee
{
public Employee()
{
IsAdmin = false;
IsManager = false;
}
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public bool IsManager { get; set; }
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
}
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_insecure_binder_configuration
Abstract
O associador da estrutura usado para vincular os parâmetros de solicitação HTTP à classe do modelo não foi explicitamente configurado para permitir ou proibir certos atributos
Explanation
Para facilitar o desenvolvimento e aumentar a produtividade, a maioria das estruturas modernas permite que um objeto seja automaticamente instanciado e preenchido com os parâmetros de solicitação HTTP cujos nomes correspondem a um atributo da classe a ser vinculada. A instanciação e o preenchimento automáticos de objetos aceleram o desenvolvimento, mas podem levar a sérios problemas se implementados sem cuidado. Qualquer atributo nas classes vinculadas, ou classes aninhadas, será automaticamente vinculado aos parâmetros de solicitação HTTP. Portanto, usuários mal-intencionados poderão atribuir um valor a qualquer atributo em classes vinculadas ou aninhadas, mesmo que não sejam expostos ao cliente por meio de formulários da web ou contratos de API.

Exemplo 1: Ao usar Spring WebFlow sem configuração adicional, a ação a seguir vinculará os parâmetros de solicitação HTTP a qualquer atributo na classe Booking:


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


Onde a classe Booking é definida como:


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

// Public Getters and Setters
...
}
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Pivotal Spring MVC Known Vulnerabilities and Issues
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.config.java.mass_assignment_insecure_binder_configuration
Abstract
Permitir que entidades persistentes de banco de dados sejam preenchidas automaticamente por parâmetros de solicitação pode permitir que um invasor crie registros não intencionais em entidades de associação ou atualize campos não pretendidos no objeto de entidade.
Explanation
Objetos de modelo são uma representação orientada a objetos de entidades de banco de dados. Eles fornecem métodos de conveniência para carregar, armazenar, atualizar e excluir entidades de banco de dados associadas.
O Hibernate, a estrutura Microsoft .NET Entity e o LINQ são exemplos de estruturas Object Relational Mapping (ORM) que ajudam você a construir objetos de modelo reforçados por banco de dados.

Muitas estruturas da Web se esforçam para facilitar a vida dos desenvolvedores fornecendo um mecanismo de associação de parâmetros de solicitação a objetos associados a solicitações com base em nomes de parâmetro de solicitação correspondentes a nomes de atributo de objetos de modelo (com base em métodos "getter" e "setter" públicos correspondentes).

Se um aplicativo usar classes ORM como objetos associados a solicitações, é provável que um parâmetro de solicitação possa modificar qualquer campo em objetos de modelo correspondentes e em qualquer campo aninhado de um atributo de objeto.

Exemplo 1: As classes Order, Customer e Profile são classes do Microsoft .NET Entity mantidas como persistentes.

public class Order {
public string ordered { get; set; }
public List<LineItem> LineItems { get; set; }
pubilc virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
...
}
public class Customer {
public int CustomerId { get; set; }
...
public virtual Profile Profile { get; set; }
...
}
public class Profile {
public int profileId { get; set; }
public string username { get; set; }
public string password { get; set; }
...
}
OrderController é uma de classe de controlador MVC ASP.NET que lida com a solicitação:


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

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

Como classes de entidades de modelo são automaticamente associadas a solicitações, um invasor pode usar essa vulnerabilidade para atualizar a senha de outro usuário adicionando os seguintes parâmetros de solicitação à solicitação: "http://www.yourcorp.com/webApp/updateOrder?order.customer.profile.profileId=1234&order.customer.profile.password=urpowned"
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_request_parameters_bound_into_persisted_objects
Abstract
Permitir que entidades persistentes de banco de dados sejam preenchidas automaticamente por parâmetros de solicitação permitirá que um invasor crie registros não intencionais em entidades de associação ou atualize campos não pretendidos no objeto de entidade.
Explanation
Objetos persistentes estão vinculados ao banco de dados subjacente e são atualizados automaticamente pela estrutura de persistência, como o Hibernate ou o JPA. Permitir que esses objetos sejam dinamicamente associados à solicitação pelo Spring MVC permitirá que um invasor injete valores inesperados no banco de dados, fornecendo parâmetros de solicitação adicionais.
Exemplo 1: As classes Order, Customer e Profile são classes do Hibernate mantidas como persistentes.

public class Order {
String ordered;
List lineItems;
Customer cust;
...
}
public class Customer {
String customerId;
...
Profile p;
...
}
public class Profile {
String profileId;
String username;
String password;
...
}
OrderController é uma de classe de controlador Spring que lida com a solicitação:

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

Como classes de comandos são automaticamente associadas à solicitação, um invasor pode usar essa vulnerabilidade para atualizar a senha de outro usuário adicionando os seguintes parâmetros de solicitação à solicitação: "http://www.yourcorp.com/webApp/updateOrder?order.customer.profile.profileId=1234&order.customer.profile.password=urpowned"
References
[1] Ryan Berg and Dinis Cruz Two Security Vulnerabilities in the Spring Framework's MVC
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.java.mass_assignment_request_parameters_bound_into_persisted_objects
Abstract
Um campo confidencial é exposto ao associador de modelo.
Explanation
Estruturas modernas permitem que os desenvolvedores associem automaticamente parâmetros de solicitações HTTP, provenientes tanto da consulta quanto do corpo da solicitação, a objetos de modelo para facilitar o desenvolvimento e aumentar a produtividade. Se o associador não estiver configurado corretamente para controlar quais parâmetros de solicitações HTTP são associados a quais atributos de modelo, um invasor poderá ser capaz de abusar do processo de associação de modelo e definir qualquer outro atributo que não deve ficar exposto ao controle dos usuários. Essa associação é possível mesmo quando os atributos de modelo não aparecem nos formulários da Web ou em contratos de API.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte método de controlador MVC ASP.NET (Register) é acessado a partir de um formulário da Web que solicita que os usuários registrem uma conta fornecendo seus nomes e senhas:


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


Em que a classe RegisterModel é definida como:


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

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

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

public Details Details { get; set; }

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


e a classe Details é definida como:


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


Considerando o cenário no Example 1, um invasor pode ser capaz de explorar o aplicativo e descobrir que existe um atributo Details no modelo RegisterModel. Se esse for o caso, o invasor poderá então tentar substituir os valores atuais atribuídos aos seus atributos.
Se um invasor descobrir esses atributos internos, e o associador de estrutura não estiver corretamente configurado para proibir a vinculação desses atributos, o invasor será capaz de registrar uma conta de administrador enviando a seguinte solicitação:


name=John&password=****&details.is_admin=true
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Process Validation (WASC-40)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_sensitive_field_exposure
Abstract
Um campo confidencial é exposto ao associador do modelo.
Explanation
Estruturas modernas permitem que os desenvolvedores vinculem automaticamente os parâmetros de solicitação HTTP da consulta e do corpo da solicitação aos objetos de modelo para facilitar o desenvolvimento e aumentar a produtividade. Se o associador não estiver configurado corretamente para controlar quais parâmetros de solicitação HTTP estão vinculados a quais atributos de modelo, um invasor pode abusar do processo de vinculação de modelo e definir quaisquer outros atributos que não devem ser expostos ao controle do usuário. Essa ligação é possível mesmo se os atributos do modelo não aparecerem nos formulários da web ou nos contratos de API.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte Struts 1 DynaActionForm define dinamicamente um ActionForm que está vinculado às solicitações do usuário. Neste caso, ele é usado para registrar uma conta, fornecendo o tipo de conta e os detalhes de um usuário:


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



Se o registro for bem-sucedido, os dados do usuário serão mantidos no banco de dados. A clase User é definida como:


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

// Public Getters and Setters
...
}


E a classe Details é definida como:


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

// Public Getters and Setters
...
}


Considerando o cenário no Example 1, um invasor pode ser capaz de explorar o aplicativo e descobrir que existe um atributo details no modelo User. Se esse for o caso, o invasor poderá então tentar substituir os valores atuais atribuídos aos seus atributos.
Se um invasor puder descobrir esses atributos internos e o associador da estrutura não estiver configurado corretamente para impedir a vinculação desses atributos, o invasor poderá registrar uma conta de administrador enviando a seguinte solicitação:


type=free&user.name=John&user.lastname=Smith&age=22&details.is_admin=true
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Spring Spring MVC Known Vulnerabilities and Issues
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Process Validation (WASC-40)
desc.config.java.mass_assignment_sensitive_field_exposure
Abstract
O programa pode desfazer a referência a um ponteiro nulo porque ele não verifica o valor de retorno de uma função que pode ser null.
Explanation
Quase todos os ataques sérios em um sistema de software começam com a violação das premissas de um programador. Depois do ataque, essas premissas parecem frágeis e infundadas, mas, antes dele, muitos programadores as defenderiam com grande veemência.

Duas suposições duvidosas que são fáceis de detectar no código são "essa chamada de função nunca pode falhar" e "não importa se essa chamada de função falhar". Quando um programador ignora o valor de retorno de uma função, ele afirma implicitamente estar operando de acordo com uma dessas suposições.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir não verifica se a string retornada pela propriedade Item é null antes de chamar a função membro Equals(), causando possivelmente um cancelamento de referência null

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


A defesa tradicional desse erro de codificação é:

"Sei que o valor solicitado sempre existirá porque... Se não existir, o programa não poderá executar o comportamento desejado e, portanto, não importa se eu manipular o erro ou simplesmente permitir que o programa se torne inativo ao tentar desfazer a referência a um valor null."

Porém, os invasores são hábeis em encontrar caminhos inesperados através de programas, particularmente quando exceções estão envolvidas.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 253, CWE ID 690
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.dotnet.missing_check_against_null
Abstract
O programa pode desreferenciar um ponteiro nulo porque ele não verifica o valor de retorno de uma função que pode ser null.
Explanation
Quase todos os ataques sérios em um sistema de software começam com a violação das premissas de um programador. Depois do ataque, essas premissas parecem frágeis e infundadas, mas, antes dele, muitos programadores as defenderiam com grande veemência.

Duas suposições duvidosas que são fáceis de detectar no código são "essa chamada de função nunca pode falhar" e "não importa se essa chamada de função falhar". Quando um programador ignora o valor de retorno de uma função, ele afirma implicitamente estar operando de acordo com uma dessas suposições.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir não verifica se a alocação de memória foi bem-sucedida antes de tentar usar o ponteiro retornado por malloc().


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


A defesa tradicional desse erro de codificação é:

"Se meu programa ficar sem memória, ele falhará. Não importa se eu tratar o erro ou simplesmente permitir que o programa se torne inativo com uma falha de segmentação ao tentar desreferenciar o ponteiro nulo."

Esse argumento ignora três considerações importantes:

- Dependendo do tipo e do tamanho do aplicativo, pode ser possível liberar a memória que está sendo usada em outro local para que a execução possa continuar.

- É impossível para o programa realizar uma saída normal, se necessário. Se o programa realizar uma operação atômica, ele poderá deixar o sistema em estado inconsistente.

- O programador perdeu a oportunidade de registrar informações de diagnóstico. A chamada para malloc() falhou por que req_size era grande demais ou por que muitas solicitações estavam sendo tratadas ao mesmo tempo? Ou ela foi causada por um vazamento de memória que se acumulou com o passar do tempo? Sem realizar o tratamento do erro, não há como saber.
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 253, CWE ID 690
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.missing_check_against_null
Abstract
O programa pode desreferenciar um ponteiro nulo porque ele não verifica o valor de retorno de uma função que pode ser null.
Explanation
Quase todos os ataques sérios em um sistema de software começam com a violação das premissas de um programador. Depois do ataque, essas premissas parecem frágeis e infundadas, mas, antes dele, muitos programadores as defenderiam com grande veemência.

Duas suposições duvidosas que são fáceis de detectar no código são "essa chamada de função nunca pode falhar" e "não importa se essa chamada de função falhar". Quando um programador ignora o valor de retorno de uma função, ele afirma implicitamente estar operando de acordo com uma dessas suposições.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir não verifica se a string retornada por getParameter() é null antes de chamar a função membro compareTo(), causando possivelmente um cancelamento de referência null.


String itemName = request.getParameter(ITEM_NAME);
if (itemName.compareTo(IMPORTANT_ITEM)) {
...
}
...
Exemplo 2:. O código a seguir mostra uma propriedade do sistema que é definida como null e, mais tarde, tem sua referência desfeita por um programador, que erroneamente assume que ela sempre será definida.


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


A defesa tradicional desse erro de codificação é:

"Sei que o valor solicitado sempre existirá porque... Se não existir, o programa não poderá executar o comportamento desejado e, portanto, não importa se eu manipular o erro ou simplesmente permitir que o programa se torne inativo ao tentar desfazer a referência a um valor null."

Porém, os invasores são hábeis em encontrar caminhos inesperados através de programas, particularmente quando exceções estão envolvidas.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 253, CWE ID 690
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.missing_check_against_null
Abstract
Essa função viola o contrato segundo o qual ela deve comparar seu parâmetro com null.
Explanation
O padrão Java requer que as implementações de Object.equals(), Comparable.compareTo() e Comparator.compare() retornem um valor especificado se seus parâmetros forem null. Comportamentos inesperados poderão ocorrer se esse contrato não for seguido.

Exemplo 1: A seguinte implementação do método equals() não compara seu parâmetro com null.


public boolean equals(Object object)
{
return (toString().equals(object.toString()));
}
References
[1] MET10-J. Follow the general contract when implementing the compareTo() method CERT
[2] MET08-J. Preserve the equality contract when overriding the equals() method CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 684
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
desc.controlflow.java.missing_check_for_null_parameter
Abstract
O aplicativo não executa nenhuma validação para os dados do formulário.
Explanation
O aplicativo falha ao validar o tipo de dados recebidos de um formulário da web. É uma boa prática validar se os dados recebidos satisfazem as exigências definidas para os dados esperados.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir define um Spring WebFlow FormAction que não consegue validar os dados em relação às exigências esperadas:


<bean id="customerCriteriaAction" class="org.springframework.webflow.action.FormAction">
<property name="formObjectClass"
value="com.acme.domain.CustomerCriteria" />
<property name="propertyEditorRegistrar">
<bean
class="com.acme.web.PropertyEditors" />
</property>
</bean>
Exemplo 2: O código a seguir define o estado de uma ação do Spring WebFlow que não consegue validar os dados em relação às exigências esperadas:


<action-state>
<action bean="transferMoneyAction" method="bind" />
</action-state>
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 108
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.config.java.missing_form_field_validation
Abstract
O aplicativo não realiza nenhuma validação dos dados do formulário.
Explanation
O aplicativo não consegue validar o tipo de dados recebido de um formulário da Web. É uma prática recomendada validar que os dados recebidos satisfazem os requisitos definidos para os dados esperados.


Exemplo 1: O seguinte código define um formulário, mas não consegue validar os dados em relação aos requisitos esperados:


def form = Form(
mapping(
"name" -> text,
"age" -> number
)(UserData.apply)(UserData.unapply)
)
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 108
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.structural.scala.missing_form_field_validation
Abstract
Uma classe clonável que realiza essa verificação em seu construtor precisa realizar a mesma verificação em seu método clone().
Explanation
Quando o método de uma classe clone() é invocado, o construtor da classe que está sendo clonada não é invocado. Portanto, se uma verificação de SecurityManager ou AccessController estiver presente no construtor de uma classe clonável, a mesma verificação também deverá estar presente no método clone da classe. Caso contrário, a verificação de segurança será ignorada quando a classe for clonada.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir contém uma verificação de SecurityManager no construtor, mas não no método clone().

public class BadSecurityCheck implements Cloneable {

private int id;

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

public Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException {
BadSecurityCheck bsm = (BadSecurityCheck)super.clone();
return null;
}
}
References
[1] "Secure Coding Guidelines for the Java Programming Language, version 2.0" Sun Microsystems, Inc. [Online]. [Accessed: Aug. 30, 2007]. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[2] C. Lai Java Insecurity: Accounting for Subtleties That Can Compromise Code
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 358
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002165
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, CM-7 Least Functionality
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
desc.structural.java.missing_securitymanager_check_cloneable
Abstract
Uma classe serializável que realiza uma verificação SecurityManager em seu construtor precisa realizar a mesma verificação em seus métodos readObject() e readObjectNoData.
Explanation
Quando o método readObject() de uma classe serializável é invocado, o construtor da classe que está sendo desserializada não é invocado. Portanto, se uma verificação de SecurityManager estiver presente no construtor de uma classe serializável, a mesma verificação de SecurityManager também deverá estar presente nos métodos readObject() e readObjectNoData(). Caso contrário, a verificação de segurança será ignorada quando a classe for desserializada.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir contém uma verificação de SecurityManager no construtor, mas não nos métodos readObject() e readObjectNoData().

public class BadSecurityCheck implements Serializable {

private int id;

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

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

public void readObjectNoData(ObjectInputStream in) throws ClassNotFoundException, IOException {
in.defaultReadObject();
}
}
References
[1] "Secure Coding Guidelines for the Java Programming Language, version 2.0" Sun Microsystems, Inc. [Online]. [Accessed: Aug. 30, 2007]. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[2] C. Lai Java Insecurity: Accounting for Subtleties That Can Compromise Code
[3] SERIAL-4: Duplicate the SecurityManager checks enforced in a class during serialization and deserialization Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 358
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002165
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, CM-7 Least Functionality
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
desc.structural.java.missing_securitymanager_check_serializable
Abstract
A incapacidade de habilitar a validação durante a análise do XML dá a um invasor a oportunidade de fornecer entradas mal-intencionadas.
Explanation
A maioria dos ataques bem-sucedidos começa com uma violação das suposições do programador. Ao aceitar um documento XML sem validá-lo com base em um esquema DTD ou XML, o programador deixa uma porta aberta para os invasores fornecerem entradas inesperadas, excessivas ou mal-intencionadas. Não é possível para um analisador XML validar todos os aspectos do conteúdo de um documento. Um analisador não pode entender a semântica completa dos dados. No entanto, ele pode fazer um trabalho completo e minucioso de verificar a estrutura do documento e, portanto, garantir ao código que processa o documento que o conteúdo é bem-formado.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 112
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310, CCI-002385, CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.3.1 SOAP Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.controlflow.abap.missing_xml_validation
Abstract
A incapacidade de habilitar a validação durante a análise do XML dá a um invasor a oportunidade de fornecer entradas mal-intencionadas.
Explanation
A maioria dos ataques bem-sucedidos começa com uma violação das suposições do programador. Ao aceitar um documento XML sem validá-lo com base em um esquema DTD ou XML, o programador deixa uma porta aberta para os invasores fornecerem entradas inesperadas, excessivas ou mal-intencionadas. Não é possível para um analisador XML validar todos os aspectos do conteúdo de um documento. Um analisador não pode entender a semântica completa dos dados. No entanto, ele pode fazer um trabalho completo e minucioso de verificar a estrutura do documento e, portanto, garantir ao código que processa o documento que o conteúdo é bem-formado.
References
[1] XmlReader Class Microsoft
[2] XmlReaderSettings Class Microsoft
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 112
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310, CCI-002385, CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.3.1 SOAP Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.controlflow.dotnet.missing_xml_validation
Abstract
A incapacidade de habilitar a validação durante a análise do XML dá a um invasor a oportunidade de fornecer entradas mal-intencionadas.
Explanation
A maioria dos ataques bem-sucedidos começa com uma violação das suposições do programador. Ao aceitar um documento XML sem validá-lo com base em um esquema DTD ou XML, o programador deixa uma porta aberta para os invasores fornecerem entradas inesperadas, excessivas ou mal-intencionadas. Não é possível para um analisador XML validar todos os aspectos do conteúdo de um documento. Um analisador não pode entender a semântica completa dos dados. No entanto, ele pode fazer um trabalho completo e minucioso de verificar a estrutura do documento e, portanto, garantir ao código que processa o documento que o conteúdo é bem-formado.
References
[1] Xerces parser features The Apache Foundation
[2] XML Validation in J2SE 1.5 Sun Microsystems
[3] Axis User's Guide Apache Software Foundation
[4] IDS16-J. Prevent XML Injection CERT
[5] IDS17-J. Prevent XML External Entity Attacks CERT
[6] INJECT-3: XML and HTML generation requires care Oracle
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 112
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310, CCI-002385, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.3.1 SOAP Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.controlflow.java.missing_xml_validation
Abstract
A incapacidade de habilitar a validação durante a análise do XML dá a um invasor a oportunidade de fornecer entradas mal-intencionadas.
Explanation
A maioria dos ataques bem-sucedidos começa com uma violação das suposições do programador. Ao aceitar um documento XML sem validá-lo com base em um esquema DTD ou XML, o programador deixa uma porta aberta para os invasores fornecerem entradas inesperadas, excessivas ou mal-intencionadas. Não é possível para um analisador XML validar todos os aspectos do conteúdo de um documento. Um analisador não pode entender a semântica completa dos dados. No entanto, ele pode fazer um trabalho completo e minucioso de verificar a estrutura do documento e, portanto, garantir ao código que processa o documento que o conteúdo é bem-formado.
References
[1] Xerces parser features The Apache Foundation
[2] XML Validation in J2SE 1.5 Sun Microsystems
[3] Axis User's Guide Apache Software Foundation
[4] IDS16-J. Prevent XML Injection CERT
[5] IDS17-J. Prevent XML External Entity Attacks CERT
[6] INJECT-3: XML and HTML generation requires care Oracle
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 112
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310, CCI-002385, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.3.1 SOAP Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002390 CAT II, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.controlflow.java.missing_xml_validation_untyped_response
Abstract
A construção de uma consulta DynamoDB dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução.
Explanation
As vulnerabilidades de NoSQL injection in DynamoDB ocorrem quando:

1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.



2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta DynamoDB.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta DynamoDB que pesquisa um usuário com seu endereço de e-mail ou nome de usuário, juntamente com a senha.


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

var ddb = new AmazonDynamoDBClient();

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

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

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


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:

Email = :value AND Password = :password


ou

Username = :value AND Password = :password


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se type contiver apenas um dos valores esperados. Se um invasor fornecer um valor type como :value = :value OR :value, a consulta se transforma no seguinte:

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


A inclusão da condição :value = :value faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na coleção users, independentemente do proprietário do email.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dotnet.nosql_injection_dynamodb
Abstract
A construção de uma consulta DynamoDB dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução.
Explanation
As vulnerabilidades de NoSQL injection in DynamoDB ocorrem quando:

1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.



2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta DynamoDB.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta DynamoDB que pesquisa um usuário com seu endereço de e-mail ou nome de usuário, juntamente com a senha.


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

DynamoDbClient ddb = DynamoDbClient.create();

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

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

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


The query intends to execute the following code:

Email = :value AND Password = :password


ou

Username = :value AND Password = :password


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se type contiver apenas um dos valores esperados. Se um invasor fornecer um valor type como :value = :value OR :value, a consulta se transforma no seguinte:

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


A inclusão da condição :value = :value faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na coleção users, independentemente do proprietário do email.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.java.nosql_injection_dynamodb
Abstract
A construção de uma consulta MongoDB dinâmica com a entrada proveniente de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução.
Explanation
Os erros de NoSQL injection in MongoDB ocorrem quando:

1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.



2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta MongoDB.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta MongoDB que procura um email com um ID específico.


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


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


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


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente ao concatenar uma string de consulta constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se emailId não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a cadeia de caracteres "123' || '4' != '5" para emailId, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


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


A inclusão da condição || '4' != '5' faz com que a cláusula where sempre seja avaliada como true e, portanto, a consulta retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na coleção emails, independentemente do proprietário do e-mail.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dotnet.nosql_injection_mongodb
Abstract
A construção de uma consulta MongoDB dinâmica com a entrada proveniente de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução.
Explanation
Os erros de NoSQL injection in MongoDB ocorrem quando:

1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.



2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta MongoDB.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta MongoDB que procura um email com um ID específico.


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


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


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


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se emailId não contiver um caractere de aspas duplas. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "123" || "4" != "5" para emailId, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


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


A adição da condição || "4" != "5" faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na coleção emails, independentemente do proprietário do email.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.java.nosql_injection_mongodb
Abstract
A construção de uma consulta MongoDB dinâmica com a entrada proveniente de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução.
Explanation
Os erros de NoSQL injection in MongoDB ocorrem quando:

1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.



2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta MongoDB.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta MongoDB que procura um email com um ID específico.


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


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


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


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se emailId não contiver um caractere de aspas duplas. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "123" || "4" != "5" para emailId, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


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


A adição da condição || "4" != "5" faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na coleção emails, independentemente do proprietário do email.
References
[1] Testing for NoSQL injection OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89, CWE ID 943
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.python.nosql_injection_mongodb
Abstract
O programa pode desfazer a referência a um ponteiro nulo, lançando assim uma NullException.
Explanation
Erros de ponteiro nulo são geralmente o resultado da violação de uma ou mais das suposições do programador.

A maioria dos problemas de ponteiro nulo resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software, mas, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente um cancelamento de referência a um ponteiro nulo, talvez ele consiga usar a exceção resultante para se esquivar da lógica de segurança ou fazer com que o aplicativo revele informações de depuração que serão valiosas no planejamento de ataques subsequentes.

Exemplo 1: No código a seguir, o programador supõe que o sistema sempre tenha uma propriedade denominada "cmd" definida. Se um invasor puder controlar o ambiente do programa de forma que "cmd" não seja definido, o programa lançará uma exceção de ponteiro nulo quando tentar chamar o método Trim().


string cmd = null;
...
cmd = Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("cmd");
cmd = cmd.Trim();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.dotnet.null_dereference
Abstract
O programa pode desreferenciar um ponteiro nulo, causando uma falha de segmentação.
Explanation
Exceções de ponteiro nulo ocorrem geralmente quando uma ou mais suposições do programador são violadas. Existem pelo menos três faces desse problema: verificação após desreferência, desreferência após verificação e desreferência após armazenamento. Um erro de verificação após o cancelamento da referência ocorre quando um programa desfaz a referência a um ponteiro que pode ser null antes que seja verificado se ele é realmente null. Erros de desreferência após a verificação ocorrem quando um programa faz uma verificação explícita em busca de valores null, mas prossegue para desreferenciar o ponteiro quando se sabe que ele é null. Erros desse tipo são frequentemente o resultado de um erro de digitação ou de uma desatenção do programador. Um erro de desreferência após o armazenamento ocorre quando um programa define explicitamente um ponteiro como null e o desreferencia mais tarde. Esse erro é frequentemente o resultado de um programador inicializar uma variável como null quando ela é declarada.

A maioria dos problemas de ponteiro nulo resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. Porém, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente uma desreferência a um ponteiro nulo, talvez ele consiga usar a exceção resultante para se esquivar da lógica de segurança a fim de formular um ataque de negação de serviço ou fazer com que o aplicativo revele informações de depuração que serão valiosas no planejamento de ataques subsequentes.

Exemplo 1: No código a seguir, o programador supõe que a variável ptr não seja NULL. Essa suposição se torna explícita quando o programador desreferencia o ponteiro. Mais tarde, essa suposição é contrariada quando o programador verifica ptr contra NULL. Se a variável ptr puder ser NULL quando for verificada na instrução if, ela também poderá ser NULL quando desreferenciada, podendo causar uma falha de segmentação.


ptr->field = val;
...
if (ptr != NULL) {
...
}
Exemplo 2: No código a seguir, o programador confirma que a variável ptr é NULL e depois a desreferencia erroneamente. Se a variável ptr for NULL quando for verificada na instrução if, ocorrerá uma desreferência null, causando assim uma falha de segmentação.


if (ptr == null) {
ptr->field = val;
...
}
Exemplo 3: No código a seguir, o programador se esquece de que a cadeia de caracteres '\0' é, na verdade, 0 ou NULL, desreferenciando assim um ponteiro nulo e provocando uma falha de segmentação.


if (ptr == '\0') {
*ptr = val;
...
}
Exemplo 4: No código a seguir, o programador define explicitamente a variável ptr como NULL. Mais tarde, o programador desreferencia ptr antes de verificar o objeto em busca de um valor null.


*ptr = NULL;
...
ptr->field = val;
...
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.null_dereference
Abstract
O programa pode desfazer a referência a um ponteiro nulo, lançando assim uma NullPointerException.
Explanation
Erros de ponteiro nulo são geralmente o resultado da violação de uma ou mais das suposições do programador.

A maioria dos problemas de ponteiro nulo resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software, mas, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente um cancelamento de referência a um ponteiro nulo, talvez ele consiga usar a exceção resultante para se esquivar da lógica de segurança ou fazer com que o aplicativo revele informações de depuração que serão valiosas no planejamento de ataques subsequentes.

Exemplo 1: No código a seguir, o programador supõe que o sistema sempre tenha uma propriedade denominada "cmd" definida. Se um invasor puder controlar o ambiente do programa de forma que "cmd" não seja definido, o programa lançará uma exceção de ponteiro nulo quando tentar chamar o método trim().


String val = null;
...
cmd = System.getProperty("cmd");
if (cmd)
val = util.translateCommand(cmd);
...
cmd = val.trim();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.null_dereference
Abstract
Um método clone() deve chamar super.clone() para obter o novo objeto.
Explanation
Todas as implementações de clone() devem obter o novo objeto chamando super.clone(). Se uma classe não seguir essa convenção, o método clone() de uma subclasse retornará um objeto do tipo errado.


Exemplo 1: As duas classes a seguir demonstram um erro introduzido pela ausência de uma chamada para super.clone(). Devido à forma como Kibitzer implementa clone(), o método clone de FancyKibitzer retornará um objeto do tipo Kibitzer em vez de FancyKibitzer.


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

public class FancyKibitzer extends Kibitzer
implements Cloneable {
public Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException {
Object returnMe = super.clone();
...
}
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 580
desc.structural.java.object_model_violation_erroneous_clone_method
Abstract
Essa classe substitui apenas equals() ou hashCode().
Explanation
Espera-se que objetos Java obedeçam a uma série de invariantes relacionadas a igualdade. Uma dessas invariantes é que os objetos iguais devem ter códigos hash iguais. Em outras palavras, se a.equals(b) == true, a.hashCode() == b.hashCode().

A falha em manter essa invariante provavelmente causará problemas se objetos dessa classe forem armazenados em uma coleção. Se os objetos da classe em questão forem usados como uma chave em uma tabela de hash ou se forem inseridos em um Mapa ou Conjunto, é fundamental que objetos iguais tenham códigos hash iguais.

Exemplo 1: A classe a seguir substitui equals(), mas não hashCode().


public class halfway() {
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
...
}
}
References
[1] D. H. Hovermeyer FindBugs User Manual
[2] MET09-J. Classes that define an equals() method must also define a hashCode() method CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 581
desc.structural.java.object_model_violation_just_one_of_equals_hashcode_defined
Abstract
Essa classe substitui apenas saveState() ou restoreState().
Explanation
Qualquer classe que herda a interface StateHolder deve implementar tanto saveState(javax.faces.context.FacesContext) quanto restoreState(javax.faces.context.FacesContext, java.lang.Object) ou implementar nenhum dos dois. Como esses dois métodos têm uma relação fortemente acoplada, não é permitido que os métodos saveState(javax.faces.context.FacesContext) e restoreState(javax.faces.context.FacesContext, java.lang.Object) residam em diferentes níveis da hierarquia de herança.

Exemplo 1: A classe a seguir define saveState() e não restoreState() e, por isso, é sempre um erro, não importa o que qualquer classe que a estende possa fazer.

public class KibitzState implements StateHolder {
public Object saveState(FacesContext fc) {
...
}
}
References
[1] Sun Microsystems JavaDoc for StateHolder Interface
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 684
desc.structural.java.object_model_violation_just_one_of_restoreState_saveState_defined
Abstract
O uso de funções obsoletas ou preteridas pode indicar um código negligenciado.
Explanation
Em geral, conforme as linguagens de programação evoluem, métodos acabam se tornando obsoletos pelos seguintes motivos:

- Avanços na linguagem
- Melhor compreensão de como as operações devem ser realizadas com eficiência e
segurança
- Mudanças nas convenções que regulam determinadas operações

Instruções removidas de uma linguagem são geralmente substituídas por equivalentes mais atuais que realizam a mesma tarefa de maneira um pouco diferente e, quem sabe, ainda melhor.

Em particular, o SAP ABAP evoluiu a ponto de incluir Objetos ABAP (a extensão do ABAP orientada a objetos) e de operar em um ambiente compatível com Unicode. Como resultado, uma sintaxe mais rigorosa é imposta em classes ou em programas Unicode. Construções obsoletas ainda estão disponíveis somente por questões de compatibilidade com versões mais antigas e só podem ser usadas fora de classes ou em programas não Unicode. Existem construções substitutas para todos os elementos de linguagem obsoletos que melhoram a eficiência e capacidade de leitura de programas. Muitas especificações de tipo/comprimento/memória ambíguas implícitas na sintaxe obsoleta devem ser especificadas de forma mais precisa e explícita na sintaxe mais recente. Recomenda-se adotar a sintaxe mais recente para tornar os programas mais fáceis de entender, mais robustos e mais simples de manter.


Nem todas as funções são preteridas ou substituídas porque representam um risco de segurança. No entanto, a presença de uma função obsoleta muitas vezes indica que o código circundante foi negligenciado e pode estar em mau estado de conservação. Por muito tempo, a segurança dos softwares nunca foi uma prioridade ou sequer era levada em consideração. Se o programa usar funções preteridas ou obsoletas, ele aumentará a probabilidade de haver problemas de segurança à espreita nas proximidades.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.abap.obsolete
Abstract
O uso de funções obsoletas ou preteridas pode indicar um código negligenciado.
Explanation
Conforme as linguagens de programação evoluem, funções acabam se tornando obsoletas pelos seguintes motivos:

- Avanços na linguagem
- Melhor compreensão de como as operações devem ser realizadas com eficiência e
segurança
- Mudanças nas convenções que regulam determinadas operações


Funções removidas de uma linguagem são geralmente substituídas por equivalentes mais atuais que realizam a mesma tarefa de maneira um pouco diferente e, quem sabe, ainda melhor.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói um novo objeto SqlClientPermission que regula como os usuários podem se conectar a um banco de dados. Neste exemplo, o programa transmite false como o segundo parâmetro para o construtor, que controla se os usuários têm permissão para se conectarem com senhas em branco. A transmissão de "false" para esse parâmetro indica que senhas em branco não devem ser permitidas.


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


No entanto, como o objeto PermissionState transmitido como o primeiro parâmetro substitui qualquer valor transmitido ao segundo parâmetro, o construtor permite senhas em branco para conexões de banco de dados, o que contradiz o segundo argumento. Para proibir senhas em branco, o programa deve transmitir PermissionState.None ao primeiro parâmetro do construtor. Devido à ambiguidade na sua funcionalidade, a versão de dois parâmetros do construtor SqlClientPermission foi preterida a favor da versão de parâmetro único, que transmite o mesmo grau de informações sem o risco de má interpretação.

Nem todas as funções são preteridas ou substituídas porque representam um risco de segurança. No entanto, a presença de uma função obsoleta muitas vezes indica que o código circundante foi negligenciado e pode estar em mau estado de conservação. Por muito tempo, a segurança dos softwares nunca foi uma prioridade ou sequer era levada em consideração. Se o programa usar funções preteridas ou obsoletas, ele aumentará a probabilidade de haver problemas de segurança à espreita nas proximidades.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.dotnet.obsolete
Abstract
O uso de funções obsoletas ou preteridas pode indicar um código negligenciado.
Explanation
Conforme as linguagens de programação evoluem, funções acabam se tornando obsoletas pelos seguintes motivos:

- Avanços na linguagem.
- Melhor compreensão de como as operações devem ser realizadas de forma eficaz e segura.
- Alterações nas convenções que regem certas operações.

Funções removidas são geralmente substituídas por equivalentes mais atuais que realizam a mesma tarefa de maneira um pouco diferente e, quem sabe, ainda melhor.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa a função preterida getpw() para verificar se a senha de texto sem formatação corresponde à senha criptografada de um usuário. Se a senha for válida, a função definirá result como 1; caso contrário, ele será definido como 0.


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


Embora o código muitas vezes se comporte corretamente, usar a função getpw() pode ser uma estratégia problemática sob o ponto de vista da segurança, pois pode estourar o buffer transmitido para seu segundo parâmetro. Devido a essa vulnerabilidade, getpw() foi suplantado por getpwuid(), que executa a mesma pesquisa que getpw(), mas retorna um ponteiro para uma estrutura estaticamente alocada a fim de atenuar o risco.

Nem todas as funções são preteridas ou substituídas porque representam um risco de segurança. No entanto, a presença de uma função obsoleta muitas vezes indica que o código circundante foi negligenciado e pode estar em mau estado de conservação. Por muito tempo, a segurança dos softwares nunca foi uma prioridade ou sequer era levada em consideração. Se o programa usar funções preteridas ou obsoletas, ele aumentará a probabilidade de haver problemas de segurança à espreita nas proximidades.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.cpp.obsolete
Abstract
O uso de funções obsoletas ou preteridas pode indicar um código negligenciado ou o uso de uma versão antiquada do ColdFusion.
Explanation
Conforme as linguagens de programação evoluem, métodos acabam se tornando obsoletos pelos seguintes motivos:

- Avanços na linguagem
- Melhor compreensão de como as operações devem ser realizadas com eficiência e
segurança
- Mudanças nas convenções que regulam certas operações

Métodos removidos de uma linguagem são geralmente substituídos por equivalentes mais atuais que realizam a mesma tarefa de maneira um pouco diferente e, quem sabe, ainda melhor.


Nem todas as funções são preteridas ou substituídas porque representam um risco de segurança. No entanto, a presença de uma função obsoleta muitas vezes indica que o código circundante foi negligenciado e pode estar em mau estado de conservação. Por muito tempo, a segurança dos softwares nunca foi uma prioridade ou sequer era levada em consideração. Se o programa usar funções preteridas ou obsoletas, ele aumentará a probabilidade de haver problemas de segurança à espreita nas proximidades.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.cfml.obsolete
Abstract
O uso de funções obsoletas ou preteridas pode indicar um código negligenciado.
Explanation
Conforme as linguagens de programação evoluem, métodos acabam se tornando obsoletos pelos seguintes motivos:

- Avanços na linguagem
- Melhor compreensão de como as operações devem ser realizadas com eficiência e
segurança
- Mudanças nas convenções que regulam certas operações

Métodos removidos de uma linguagem são geralmente substituídos por equivalentes mais atuais que realizam a mesma tarefa de maneira um pouco diferente e, quem sabe, ainda melhor.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói um objeto de string a partir de um array de bytes e um valor que especifica os primeiros 8 bits de cada caractere Unicode de 16 bits.


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


Neste exemplo, o construtor pode falhar ao converter corretamente bytes em caracteres, dependendo de qual conjunto de caracteres é usado para codificar a string representada por nameBytes. Devido à evolução dos charsets utilizados para codificar strings, este construtor foi descontinuado e substituído por um construtor que aceita como um de seus parâmetros o nome do charset usado para codificar os bytes para conversão.

Nem todas as funções são preteridas ou substituídas porque representam um risco de segurança. No entanto, a presença de uma função obsoleta muitas vezes indica que o código circundante foi negligenciado e pode estar em mau estado de conservação. Por muito tempo, a segurança dos softwares nunca foi uma prioridade ou sequer era levada em consideração. Se o programa usar funções preteridas ou obsoletas, ele aumentará a probabilidade de haver problemas de segurança à espreita nas proximidades.
References
[1] MET02-J. Do not use deprecated or obsolete classes or methods CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.semantic.java.obsolete
Abstract
O uso de funções obsoletas ou preteridas pode indicar um código negligenciado.
Explanation
Conforme as linguagens de programação evoluem, métodos acabam se tornando obsoletos pelos seguintes motivos:

- Avanços na linguagem
- Uma melhor compreensão de como as operações deveriam ser realizadas de maneira efetiva e
segura
- Mudanças nas convenções que regulam certas operações.

Métodos removidos de uma linguagem são geralmente substituídos por equivalentes mais atuais que realizam a mesma tarefa de maneira um pouco diferente e, quem sabe, ainda melhor.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa a stdlib Digest::HMAC, cujo uso é explicitamente desencorajado na documentação devido ao envolvimento acidental em uma versão.


require 'digest/hmac'

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


Neste exemplo, a classe Digest::HMAC foi preterida imediatamente após o envolvimento devido à inclusão acidental em uma versão. Devido à possibilidade de ela não funcionar como o esperado por causa de um código experimental e não testado apropriadamente, a utilização é extremamente desencorajada, especialmente considerando-se a relação que os HMACs têm com a funcionalidade criptográfica.

Nem todas as funções são preteridas ou substituídas porque representam um risco de segurança. No entanto, a presença de uma função obsoleta muitas vezes indica que o código circundante foi negligenciado e pode estar em mau estado de conservação. Por muito tempo, a segurança dos softwares nunca foi uma prioridade ou sequer era levada em consideração. Se o programa usar funções preteridas ou obsoletas, ele aumentará a probabilidade de haver problemas de segurança à espreita nas proximidades.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 477
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002617
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-2 Flaw Remediation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-2 Flaw Remediation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.6 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002610 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-111
desc.structural.ruby.obsolete
Abstract
As funções checkCallingOrSelfPermission() ou checkCallingOrSelfUriPermission(), devem ser usadas com cuidado, pois permitem que o programa de chamada, sem as permissões necessárias ou sem nenhuma permissão, ignore a verificação de permissão, usando as permissões do seu aplicativo.
Explanation
A função checkCallingOrSelfPermission() ou checkCallingOrSelfUriPermission() determina se o programa de chamada tem a permissão necessária para acessar um determinado serviço ou URI. No entanto, essas funções devem ser usadas com cautela, pois podem conceder acesso a aplicativos mal-intencionados, que não possuem as permissões apropriadas, assumindo as permissões do seu aplicativo.

Isso significa que um aplicativo mal-intencionado, sem as permissões apropriadas, pode ignorar sua verificação de permissão usando a permissão do seu aplicativo para obter o acesso a recursos que, de outra forma, seria negado. Isso pode resultar no que é conhecido como um ataque de representante confuso.
References
[1] Designing for Security Android
[2] Context: Android Developers Android
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 732
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.5 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 863
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.structural.java.often_misused_android_permission_check
Abstract
Os invasores podem falsificar entradas de DNS. Não confie em nomes DNS para segurança.
Explanation
Muitos servidores DNS são suscetíveis a ataques de falsificação e, portanto, você deve partir do princípio de que algum dia o seu software será executado em um ambiente com um servidor DNS comprometido. Se os invasores tiverem permissão para fazer atualizações de DNS (processo às vezes chamado de envenenamento de cache de DNS), eles poderão rotear seu tráfego de rede através das máquinas deles ou causar a impressão de que os endereços IP deles fazem parte do seu domínio. Não baseie a segurança do seu sistema em nomes DNS.
Exemplo 1: A amostra de código a seguir usa uma pesquisa de DNS para decidir se uma solicitação de entrada é ou não proveniente de um host confiável. Se um invasor puder envenenar o cache de DNS, ele poderá obter um status confiável.


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


Endereços IP são mais confiáveis que nomes DNS, mas também podem ser falsificados. Os invasores podem facilmente falsificar o endereço IP de origem dos pacotes que eles enviam, mas os pacotes de resposta retornarão ao endereço IP falsificado. Para ver os pacotes de resposta, o invasor precisa realizar o sniffing do tráfego entre a máquina da vítima e o endereço IP falsificado. Para realizar o sniffing necessário, os invasores normalmente tentam se localizar na mesma sub-rede que a máquina da vítima. Os invasores podem ser capazes de se esquivar dessa exigência usando o roteamento de origem, mas esse roteamento não está habilitado em uma grande extensão da Internet hoje em dia. Em resumo, a verificação de endereços IP pode ser uma parte útil de um esquema de autenticação, mas não deve ser o único fator necessário para a autenticação.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 247, CWE ID 292, CWE ID 558, CWE ID 807
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000877
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-11 Re-Authentication (P0), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-11 Trusted Path, SC-23 Session Authenticity
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A7 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A2 Broken Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3460 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3460 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3460 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3460 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3460 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3460 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3460 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.semantic.dotnet.often_misused_authentication
Abstract
A função getlogin() é fácil de falsificar. Não confie no nome que ela retorna.
Explanation
A função getlogin() deve retornar uma string contendo o nome do usuário atualmente conectado ao terminal, mas um invasor pode fazer com que getlogin() retorne o nome de qualquer usuário conectado à máquina. Não confie no nome retornado por getlogin() ao tomar decisões de segurança.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir se baseia em getlogin() para determinar se um usuário é ou não confiável. Isso é facilmente contestado.


pwd = getpwnam(getlogin());
if (isTrustedGroup(pwd->pw_gid)) {
allow();
} else {
deny();
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 247, CWE ID 292, CWE ID 558, CWE ID 807
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000877
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-11 Re-Authentication (P0), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-11 Trusted Path, SC-23 Session Authenticity
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A7 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A2 Broken Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3460 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3460 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3460 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3460 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3460 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3460 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3460 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.semantic.cpp.often_misused_authentication.getlogin
Abstract
Os invasores podem falsificar entradas de DNS. Não confie em nomes DNS para segurança.
Explanation
Muitos servidores DNS são suscetíveis a ataques de falsificação e, portanto, você deve partir do princípio de que algum dia o seu software será executado em um ambiente com um servidor DNS comprometido. Se os invasores tiverem permissão para fazer atualizações de DNS (processo às vezes chamado de envenenamento de cache de DNS), eles poderão rotear seu tráfego de rede através das máquinas deles ou causar a impressão de que os endereços IP deles fazem parte do seu domínio. Não baseie a segurança do seu sistema em nomes DNS.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa uma pesquisa de DNS para determinar se uma solicitação de entrada é proveniente de um host confiável. Se um invasor puder envenenar o cache de DNS, ele poderá obter um status confiável.


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


Endereços IP são mais confiáveis que nomes DNS, mas também podem ser falsificados. Os invasores podem facilmente falsificar o endereço IP de origem dos pacotes que eles enviam, mas os pacotes de resposta retornarão ao endereço IP falsificado. Para ver os pacotes de resposta, o invasor precisa realizar o sniffing do tráfego entre a máquina da vítima e o endereço IP falsificado. Para realizar o sniffing necessário, os invasores normalmente tentam se localizar na mesma sub-rede que a máquina da vítima. Os invasores podem ser capazes de se esquivar dessa exigência usando o roteamento de origem, mas esse roteamento não está habilitado em uma grande extensão da Internet hoje em dia. Em resumo, a verificação de endereços IP pode ser uma parte útil de um esquema de autenticação, mas não deve ser o único fator necessário para a autenticação.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 247, CWE ID 292, CWE ID 558, CWE ID 807
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000877
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-11 Re-Authentication (P0), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-11 Trusted Path, SC-23 Session Authenticity
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A7 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A2 Broken Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3460 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3460 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3460 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3460 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3460 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3460 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3460 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001970 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.semantic.java.often_misused_authentication
Abstract
O método Boolean.getBoolean() é muitas vezes confundido com chamadas de métodos Boolean.valueOf() ou Boolean.parseBoolean().
Explanation
Na maioria dos casos, uma chamada para Boolean.getBoolean() é muitas vezes má utilizada, pois presume-se que ela retorne o valor booliano representado pelo argumento de string especificado. No entanto, conforme indicado no Javadoc, o método Boolean.getBoolean(String) "retornará true se, e somente se, a propriedade do sistema nomeada pelo argumento existir e for igual à string 'true'".

Na maioria das vezes, o que o desenvolvedor pretendia usar era uma chamada para o método Boolean.valueOf(String) ou Boolean.parseBoolean(String).
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir não se comportará conforme esperado. Ele imprimirá "FALSE", pois Boolean.getBoolean(String) não converte uma primitiva de String. Ele apenas converte a propriedade do sistema.

...
String isValid = "true";
if ( Boolean.getBoolean(isValid) ) {
System.out.println("TRUE");
}
else {
System.out.println("FALSE");
}
...
References
[1] Class Boolean Oracle
[2] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[3] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
desc.semantic.java.often_misused_boolean_getboolean