Reino: API Abuse

Uma API é um contrato entre quem chama e o que se chama. As formas mais comuns de abuso de API ocorrem quando o responsável pela chamada não respeita sua parte do contrato. Por exemplo, se um programa não chama chdir() após chamar chroot(), ele viola o contrato que especifica como alterar o diretório raiz ativo de forma segura. Outro bom exemplo de abuso de biblioteca é esperar que o elemento chamado retorne informações confiáveis de DNS ao responsável pela chamada. Nesse caso, o responsável pela chamada abusa a API do elemento chamado ao fazer certas suposições sobre seu comportamento (isto é, que o valor de retorno pode ser usado para fins de autenticação). A outra parte também pode violar o contrato entre quem chama e o que se chama. Por exemplo, se um programador definir SecureRandom como subclasse e retornar um valor não aleatório, o contrato será violado.

6 itens encontrados
Vulnerabilidades
Abstract
A classe de modelo tem propriedades obrigatórias e propriedades opcionais. Portanto, ela pode ser suscetível a ataques over-posting.
Explanation
Usar uma classe de modelo que possui propriedades obrigatórias (marcadas com o atributo [Required]) e propriedades opcionais (não marcadas com o atributo [Required]) pode provocar problemas quando um invasor comunica uma solicitação que contém mais dados que o esperado.

A estrutura MVC ASP.NET tentará associar parâmetros de solicitação a propriedades de modelo.

O fato de haver níveis combinados de exigência sem a comunicação explícita de quais parâmetros devem ser associados a modelos pode indicar que existem propriedades de modelo para uso interno, mas que essas propriedades podem ser controladas por um invasor.

O código a seguir define uma possível classe de modelo que tem propriedades com [Required] e propriedades sem [Required]:


public class MyModel
{
[Required]
public String UserName { get; set; }

[Required]
public String Password { get; set; }

public Boolean IsAdmin { get; set; }
}


Se qualquer parâmetro opcional puder alterar o comportamento de um aplicativo, talvez um invasor seja capaz de realmente mudar esse comportamento comunicando um parâmetro opcional em uma solicitação.
References
[1] Input Validation vs. Model Validation in ASP.NET MVC
[2] BindAttribute Class
[3] RequiredAttribute Class
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 345
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002422
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 13.2.6 RESTful Web Service Verification Requirements (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 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.dotnet.aspnet_mvc_bad_practices_mixed_required_model
Abstract
A classe de modelo tem uma propriedade obrigatória não anulável e, portanto, pode ser suscetível a ataques under-posting.
Explanation
Usar uma classe de modelo que possui propriedades obrigatórias não anuláveis (marcadas com o atributo [Required]) pode provocar problemas quando um invasor comunica uma solicitação que contém menos dados do que o esperado.

A estrutura MVC ASP.NET tentará associar parâmetros de solicitação a propriedades de modelo.

Se um modelo tiver um parâmetro obrigatório não anulável e um invasor não comunicar esse parâmetro em uma solicitação -- ou seja, se o invasor usar um ataque under-posting --, a propriedade terá o valor padrão (geralmente zero), que atenderá ao atributo de validação [Required]. Isso pode provocar o comportamento inesperado do aplicativo.

O código a seguir define uma classe de modelo possível que possui uma enumeração obrigatória não anulável:


public enum ArgumentOptions
{
OptionA = 1,
OptionB = 2
}

public class Model
{
[Required]
public String Argument { get; set; }

[Required]
public ArgumentOptions Rounding { get; set; }
}
References
[1] Input Validation vs. Model Validation in ASP.NET MVC
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 345
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002422
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 13.2.6 RESTful Web Service Verification Requirements (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 A2 Injection Flaws
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.dotnet.aspnet_mvc_bad_practices_required_non_nullable_in_model
Abstract
A classe de modelo tem uma propriedade obrigatória cujo tipo é um membro opcional de um tipo de modelo pai e, portanto, pode ser suscetível a ataques under-posting.
Explanation
Se uma classe de modelo tiver a propriedade obrigatória e for do tipo de um membro opcional de uma classe de modelo pai, ela poderá ser suscetível a ataques under-posting se um invasor comunicar uma solicitação contendo menos dados que o esperado.

A estrutura MVC ASP.NET tentará associar parâmetros de solicitação a propriedades de modelo, incluindo submodelos.

Se um submodelo for opcional -- ou seja, se o modelo pai tiver uma propriedade sem o atributo [Required] -- e se um invasor não comunicar esse submodelo, então a propriedade pai terá um valor null, e os campos obrigatórios do modelo filho não serão confirmados pela validação de modelo. Essa é uma das formas de ataque under-posting.

Considere as seguintes definições de classe de modelo:


public class ChildModel
{
public ChildModel()
{
}

[Required]
public String RequiredProperty { get; set; }
}

public class ParentModel
{
public ParentModel()
{
}

public ChildModel Child { get; set; }
}


Se um invasor não comunicar um valor para a propriedade ParentModel.Child, a propriedade ChildModel.RequiredProperty terá um [Required] não confirmado. Isso pode produzir resultados inesperados e indesejáveis.
References
[1] Input Validation vs. Model Validation in ASP.NET MVC
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 345
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002422
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 13.2.6 RESTful Web Service Verification Requirements (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 A2 Injection Flaws
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.dotnet.aspnet_mvc_bad_practices_optional_submodel_with_required_property
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
O associador de estrutura usado para vincular os parâmetros de solicitação HTTP à classe de modelo depende de Formatadores de Entrada quando a anotação [FromBody] é usada.
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.

Nesse caso, quando a anotação [FromBody] é aplicada a um parâmetro complexo de uma ação, então quaisquer outros atributos de associação, como [Bind] ou [BindNever] aplicados ao tipo do parâmetro ou qualquer um de seus campos são ignorados efetivamente, o que significa que a mitigação usando anotações de associação é impossível.

Exemplo 1: Em um aplicativo Web ASP.NET Core MVC, quando a anotação [FromBody] é aplicada a um parâmetro de uma ação, o associador de modelo tenta vincular automaticamente todos os parâmetros especificados no corpo da solicitação usando um Formatador de Entrada. Por padrão, o associador usa o Formatador de Entrada JSON para tentar vincular todos os parâmetros possíveis que vêm do corpo da solicitação:


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


Observe que quaisquer anotações de associação, como[Bind] ou[BindNever], aplicadas ao tipo Product a seguir são ignorados devido ao uso de Formatadores de Entrada quando a anotação [FromBody] está presente.


public class Product
{
...
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
...
}
References
[1] Microsoft [FromBody] attribute
[2] OWASP Mass assignment
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_request_parameters_bound_via_input_formatters