172 itens encontrados
Vulnerabilidades
Abstract
O atributo unsecure especifica uma lista de atributos cujos valores podem ser definidos no cliente.
Explanation
Os valores de atributos para componentes do Oracle ADF Faces podem ser definidos normalmente apenas no servidor. No entanto, vários componentes permitem que o desenvolvedor defina uma lista de atributos que podem ser definidos no cliente. O atributo unsecure desses componentes pode especificar uma lista como essa.

Atualmente, o único atributo que pode aparecer dentro do atributo unsecure é disabled e permite que o cliente defina quais componentes estão habilitados e quais não estão. Nunca é uma boa ideia deixar que o cliente controle os valores de atributos que só devem ser configuráveis no servidor.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir demonstra um componente inputText que coleta informações de senha do usuário e usa o atributo unsecure.


...
<af:inputText id="pwdBox"
label="#{resources.PWD}"
value=""#{userBean.password}
unsecure="disabled"
secret="true"
required="true"/>
...
References
[1] Oracle ADF Faces Tag Reference
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[3] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
desc.structural.java.adf_faces_bad_practices_unsecure_attribute
Abstract
O aplicativo permite que sejam usados cookies para o protocolo file:// que pode ter implicações de segurança indesejáveis.
Explanation
Os cookies são estritamente um mecanismo HTTP, de acordo com a RFC 2109. Não deve haver expectativa razoável de que eles trabalhem para protocolos que não sejam HTTP, incluindo file://. Não está claro qual deve ser seu comportamento e quais regras de compartimentalização de segurança devem ser aplicadas. Por exemplo, os arquivos HTML baixados para o disco local da Internet compartilham os mesmos cookies que qualquer código HTML instalado localmente?
References
[1] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
desc.semantic.java.android_bad_practices_use_of_file_scheme_cookies
Abstract
O aplicativo invoca APIs internas ou ocultas.
Explanation
Não é recomendável que os desenvolvedores criem seus aplicativos usando APIs não documentadas ou ocultas. Não há garantias de que o Google não irá remover ou alterar essas APIs no futuro e, portanto, elas devem ser evitadas. Dessa forma, usar esses métodos ou campos tem um alto risco de violar seu aplicativo.
References
[1] Google Restrictions on non-SDK interfaces
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
desc.structural.cpp.android_bad_practices_use_of_internal_apis
Abstract
O aplicativo invoca APIs internas ou ocultas.
Explanation
Não é recomendável que os desenvolvedores criem seus aplicativos usando APIs não documentadas ou ocultas. Não há garantias de que o Google não irá remover ou alterar essas APIs no futuro e, portanto, elas devem ser evitadas. Dessa forma, usar esses métodos ou campos tem um alto risco de violar seu aplicativo.
References
[1] Google Restrictions on non-SDK interfaces
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
desc.structural.java.android_bad_practices_use_of_internal_apis
Abstract
O código faz referência ao objeto Camera depois que este já foi liberado.
Explanation
O código tenta usar o objeto Camera depois que ele já foi liberado. Qualquer referência adicional ao objeto Camera sem a reaquisição do recurso lançará uma exceção e poderá fazer com que o aplicativo trave se essa exceção não for detectada.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa um botão de alternância para ativar e desativar a visualização da câmera. Depois que o usuário tocar no botão uma vez, a visualização da câmera será interrompida, e o recurso da câmera será liberado. No entanto, se ele tocar no botão novamente, startPreview() será chamado no objeto Camera anteriormente liberado.


public class ReuseCameraActivity extends Activity {
private Camera cam;

...
private class CameraButtonListener implements OnClickListener {
public void onClick(View v) {
if (toggle) {
cam.stopPreview();
cam.release();
}
else {
cam.startPreview();
}
toggle = !toggle;
}
}
...
}
References
[1] Camera, Android Developers
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 416
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [7] CWE ID 416
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [8] CWE ID 416
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [7] CWE ID 416
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [7] CWE ID 416
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [4] CWE ID 416
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [8] CWE ID 416, [12] CWE ID 020, [20] CWE ID 119
[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 Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.android_bad_practices_use_of_released_camera_resource
Abstract
O código faz referência ao objeto de mídia do Android depois que este já foi liberado.
Explanation
O código tenta usar o objeto de mídia depois que ele já foi liberado. Qualquer referência adicional a esse objeto de mídia sem a reaquisição do recurso lançará uma exceção e poderá fazer com que o aplicativo trave se essa exceção não for detectada.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa um botão de pausa para alternar a reprodução da mídia. Depois que o usuário tocar no botão uma vez, a música ou o vídeo atual será pausado, e o recurso da câmera será liberado. No entanto, se ele tocar no botão novamente, start() será chamado no recurso de mídia anteriormente liberado.


public class ReuseMediaPlayerActivity extends Activity {
private MediaPlayer mp;

...
private class PauseButtonListener implements OnClickListener {
public void onClick(View v) {
if (paused) {
mp.pause();
mp.release();
}
else {
mp.start();
}
paused = !paused;
}
}
...
}
References
[1] Media Player, Android Developers
[2] Audio Capture, Android Developers
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 416
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [7] CWE ID 416
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [8] CWE ID 416
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [7] CWE ID 416
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [7] CWE ID 416
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [4] CWE ID 416
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [8] CWE ID 416, [12] CWE ID 020, [20] CWE ID 119
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.android_bad_practices_use_of_released_media_resource
Abstract
O código faz referência ao manipulador de banco de dados do Android depois que este já foi liberado.
Explanation
O código tenta usar o manipulador de banco de dados SQLite do Android depois que ele já foi fechado. Qualquer referência adicional ao manipulador sem o restabelecimento da conexão com o banco de dados lançará uma exceção e poderá fazer com que o aplicativo trave se essa exceção não for detectada.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir pode ser de um programa que armazena em cache valores de usuário temporariamente na memória, mas que pode chamar flushUpdates() para confirmar as alterações no disco. O método fecha corretamente o manipulador de banco de dados depois de gravar atualizações no banco de dados. No entanto, quando flushUpdates() é chamado novamente, o objeto de banco de dados é referenciado novamente antes da reinicialização.


public class ReuseDBActivity extends Activity {
private myDBHelper dbHelper;
private SQLiteDatabase db;

@Override
public void onCreate(Bundle state) {
...
db = dbHelper.getWritableDatabase();
...
}
...

private void flushUpdates() {
db.insert(cached_data); // flush cached data
dbHelper.close();
}
...
}
References
[1] Data Storage, Android Developers
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 416
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [7] CWE ID 416
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [8] CWE ID 416
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [7] CWE ID 416
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [7] CWE ID 416
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [4] CWE ID 416
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [8] CWE ID 416, [12] CWE ID 020, [20] CWE ID 119
[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 Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.android_bad_practices_use_of_released_sqlite_resource
Abstract
JavaScript minificado foi incluído neste arquivo. A Microsoft recomenda que versões minificadas de bibliotecas JavaScript sejam incluídas por questões de desempenho.
Explanation
A minificação melhora os tempos de carregamento de páginas para aplicativos que incluem arquivos JavaScript, reduzindo o tamanho do arquivo. O termo Minificação refere-se ao processo de remover espaços em branco, comentários, pontos-e-vírgulas e chaves desnecessários, de encurtar nomes de variáveis locais e de remover códigos inacessíveis.

Exemplo 1: O código ASPX a seguir inclui a versão não minificada da biblioteca jQuery da Microsoft:


...
<script src="http://applicationserver.application.com/lib/jquery/jquery-1.4.2.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
...
References
[1] Optimizations for Improving Load Times Microsoft
[2] Introduction to CSS Minification Microsoft
[3] Microsoft AJAX Minifier Microsoft
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A3 Malicious File Execution
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 098
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
desc.semantic.dotnet.asp_net_bad_practices_unminified_code
Abstract
O aplicativo especifica o middleware de diretiva de cookie ASP.NET incorretamente.
Explanation
O middleware ASP.NET Core que não é adicionado ao pipeline de middleware na ordem correta não funcionará conforme o esperado, deixando um aplicativo aberto a vários problemas de segurança.

Exemplo 1: O método UseCookiePolicy() adiciona o middleware de política de cookie ao pipeline de middleware, permitindo políticas de cookie personalizadas. Quando especificado na ordem errada, como mostrado, qualquer política de cookie indicada pelo programador será ignorada.


...
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(...);
var app = builder.Build(...);
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseSession();
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
...
}

app.UseCookiePolicy();
...
References
[1] Rick Anderson, Steve Smith ASP.NET Core Middleware Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 696, CWE ID 1188, CWE ID 565
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP, SC
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.1 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective 2.3 - Secure Defaults
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective 2.3 - Secure Defaults, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.controlflow.dotnet.asp_dotnet_middleware_out_of_order_default_cookie_configuration
Abstract
O aplicativo especifica o middleware de redirecionamento HTTPS ASP.NET padrão incorretamente.
Explanation
O middleware ASP.NET Core que não é adicionado ao pipeline de middleware na ordem correta não funcionará conforme o esperado, deixando um aplicativo aberto a vários problemas de segurança.

Exemplo 1: O método UseHttpsRedirection() adiciona o middleware de redirecionamento HTTPS ao pipeline de middleware, que permite o redirecionamento de solicitações HTTP não seguras para uma solicitação HTTPS segura. Quando especificado na ordem errada, conforme mostrado, nenhum redirecionamento HTTPS significativo ocorrerá antes de processar a solicitação por meio do middleware listado antes do redirecionamento. Isso permitirá que as solicitações HTTP sejam processadas pelo aplicativo antes de serem redirecionadas para a conexão HTTPS segura.


...
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(...);
var app = builder.Build(...);
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseSession();
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
...
}

app.UseHttpsRedirection();
...
References
[1] Rick Anderson, Steve Smith ASP.NET Core Middleware Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 696, CWE ID 200, CWE ID 311, CWE ID 319
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000068, CCI-001453, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422, CCI-002890, CCI-003123
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SC
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-17 Remote Access (P1), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-17 Remote Access, MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 319
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
desc.controlflow.dotnet.asp_dotnet_middleware_out_of_order_insecure_transport
Abstract
O aplicativo especifica o middleware de registro em log do ASP.NET Core incorretamente.
Explanation
O middleware ASP.NET Core que não é adicionado ao pipeline de middleware na ordem correta não funcionará conforme o esperado, deixando um aplicativo aberto a vários problemas de segurança.

Exemplo 1: O método UseHttpLogging() adiciona middleware de registro em log HTTP ao pipeline de middleware que permite que os componentes de middleware sejam registrados em log. Quando especificado na ordem errada, conforme mostrado, nenhum middleware adicionado ao pipeline antes da chamada para UseHttpLogging() será registrado em log.


...
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(...);
var app = builder.Build(...);
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseSession();
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
...
}

app.UseHttpLogging();
...
Exemplo 2: O método UseWC3Logging() adiciona o middleware de registro em log do W3C ao pipeline de middleware que permite que os componentes de middleware sejam registrados em log. Quando especificado na ordem errada, conforme mostrado, nenhum middleware adicionado ao pipeline antes da chamada para UseWC3Logging() será registrado em log.


...
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(...);
var app = builder.Build(...);
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseSession();
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
...
}

app.UseWC3Logging();
...
References
[1] Rick Anderson, Steve Smith ASP.NET Core Middleware Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 696, CWE ID 778
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000172
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), AU-12 Audit Generation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-10 Non-Repudiation, AU-12 Audit Record Generation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 7.1.3 Log Content Requirements (L2 L3), 7.1.4 Log Content Requirements (L2 L3), 7.2.1 Log Processing Requirements (L2 L3), 7.2.2 Log Processing Requirements (L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration, A10 Insufficient Logging and Monitoring
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10, Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.1.4, Requirement 10.2.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.1.4, Requirement 10.2.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 8.2 - Activity Tracking
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 8.2 - Activity Tracking
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 8.2 - Activity Tracking
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.controlflow.dotnet.asp_dotnet_middleware_out_of_order_insufficient_logging
Abstract
A ação do controlador pode se beneficiar de ser restrita a aceitar apenas um dos seguintes verbos HTTP: Post, Put, Patch ou Delete.
Explanation
As ações do controlador ASP.NET MVC que modificam dados gravando, atualizando ou excluindo podem se beneficiar da restrição de aceitar um dos seguintes verbos HTTP: Post, Put, Patch ou Delete. Isso aumenta a dificuldade de falsificação de solicitação entre sites, pois o clique acidental de links não fará com que a ação seja executada.

A ação de controlador a seguir aceita qualquer verbo por padrão e pode ser suscetível a falsificação de solicitações entre sites:


public ActionResult UpdateWidget(Model model)
{
// ... controller logic
}
References
[1] Don't use Delete Links because they create Security Holes
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 352
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [9] CWE ID 352
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [9] CWE ID 352
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [9] CWE ID 352
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [9] CWE ID 352
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [9] CWE ID 352
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [4] CWE ID 352
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-001941, CCI-001942
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) (P1), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users), SC-23 Session Authenticity, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 4.2.2 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 13.2.3 RESTful Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A5 Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A5 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A8 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.9
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.9
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.9
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3585 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3585 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3585 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3585 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3585 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3585 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3585 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Request Forgery (WASC-09)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Request Forgery
desc.structural.dotnet.aspnet_mvc_bad_practices_action_not_post_only
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 aplicativo solicita aos usuários que insiram as impressões digitais sem fornecer uma justificativa.
Explanation
De acordo com a política da Apple, o aplicativo deve sempre explicar aos usuários por que suas impressões digitais são necessárias. Não fazer isso pode confundir o usuário ou mesmo fazer com que o aplicativo seja rejeitado na AppStore.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa a ID de toque para autenticar o usuário, mas não fornece um motivo localizado que explique porque a autenticação é necessária:


[context evaluatePolicy:LAPolicyDeviceOwnerAuthenticationWithBiometrics localizedReason:nil
reply:^(BOOL success, NSError *error) {
if (success) {
NSLog(@"Auth was OK");
}
}];
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] Keychain and Authentication with Touch ID Apple
[3] https://developer.apple.com/reference/localauthentication/lacontext Apple
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1, MASVS-AUTH-2
desc.structural.objc.biometric_authentication_missing_operation_message
Abstract
O aplicativo solicita ao usuário que insira as impressões digitais sem fornecer uma justificativa.
Explanation
De acordo com a política da Apple, o aplicativo deve sempre explicar aos usuários por que suas impressões digitais são necessárias. Não fazer isso pode confundir o usuário ou mesmo fazer com que o aplicativo seja rejeitado na AppStore.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa a ID de toque para autenticar o usuário, mas não fornece um motivo localizado que explique porque a autenticação é necessária:


context.evaluatePolicy(LAPolicy.DeviceOwnerAuthenticationWithBiometrics, localizedReason: "", reply: { (success, error) -> Void in
if (success) {
print("Auth was OK");
}
else {
print("Error received: %d", error!);
}
})
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] Keychain and Authentication with Touch ID Apple
[3] https://developer.apple.com/reference/localauthentication/lacontext Apple
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1, MASVS-AUTH-2
desc.structural.swift.biometric_authentication_missing_operation_message
Abstract
Uma consulta Castor que não é somente leitura pode ter implicações de desempenho.
Explanation
Mesmo que o Castor crie um bloqueio em um objeto, ele não impede que outros threads leiam ou gravem nele. Consultas somente leitura também são cerca de 7 vezes mais rápidas em comparação ao modo compartilhado padrão.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir especifica o modo de consulta como SHARED, o que permite acesso de leitura e gravação.

results = query.execute(Database.SHARED);
References
[1] ExoLab Group Castor JDO - Best practice
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 732
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.5 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 7.2.2
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[14] 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
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
desc.structural.java.castor_bad_practices_query_mode_not_read_only
Abstract
A consulta Castor não define explicitamente um modo de consulta.
Explanation
Por padrão, o Castor executa consultas no modo compartilhado. Como o modo compartilhado permite o acesso de leitura e gravação, não está claro para que tipo de operação a consulta se destina. Se o objeto for ser usado em um contexto somente leitura, o acesso compartilhado adicionará sobrecarga de desempenho desnecessária.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir não especifica um modo de consulta.

results = query.execute(); //missing query mode
References
[1] ExoLab Group Castor JDO - Best practice
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 732
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.5 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 7.2.2
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[14] 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
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
desc.semantic.java.castor_bad_practices_unspecified_query_mode
Abstract
O programa usa um operador aritmético em um valor booliano, que talvez não realize o que o programador tinha em mente.
Explanation
Operações aritméticas não atuarão da mesma maneira em valores boolianos como fariam em valores integrais, o que pode resultar em comportamentos inesperados.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 480
[2] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 13.4, Rule 14.3
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 13.4, Rule 14.3
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 5-0-13, Rule 6-2-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 7.0.1, Rule 8.14.1, Rule 8.18.2
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
desc.structural.cpp.code_correctness_arithmetic_operation_on_boolean
Abstract
A conversão de um array de bytes em uma String pode levar à perda de dados.
Explanation
Quando os dados de um array de bytes são convertidos em uma String, não fica claro o que acontecerá com os dados que estiverem fora do conjunto de caracteres aplicável. Isso pode provocar perda de dados ou uma diminuição no nível de segurança quando dados binários são necessários para assegurar que medidas de segurança adequadas sejam seguidas.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir converte dados em uma String para criar um hash.


...
FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream(myFile);
byte[] byteArr = byte[BUFSIZE];
...
int count = fis.read(byteArr);
...
String fileString = new String(byteArr);
String fileSHA256Hex = DigestUtils.sha256Hex(fileString);
// use fileSHA256Hex to validate file
...


Isso funciona muito bem supondo que o tamanho do arquivo seja menor que BUFSIZE, desde que as informações em myFile sejam codificadas da mesma maneira que o conjunto de caracteres padrão. Porém, se uma codificação diferente estiver em uso, ou se o arquivo for binário, haverá perda de informações. Isso por sua vez fará com que o hash SHA resultante seja menos confiável e pode implicar que colisões podem ser provocadas com muito mais facilidade, especialmente se os dados fora do conjunto de caracteres padrão forem representados pelo mesmo valor, como um ponto de interrogação.
References
[1] STR03-J. Do not encode noncharacter data as a string CERT
[2] When 'EFBFBD' and Friends Come Knocking: Observations of Byte Array to String Conversions GDS Security
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 486
desc.semantic.java.code_correctness_byte_array_to_string_conversion
Abstract
Solicitações explícitas para coleta de lixo são um termômetro que indicam prováveis problemas de desempenho.
Explanation
Em algum momento na carreira do todos os desenvolvedores .NET, surge um problema que parece ser tão misterioso, impenetrável e impermeável a depurações que parece não haver nenhuma alternativa a não ser culpar o coletor de lixo. Especialmente quando o bug está relacionado ao tempo e ao estado, pode haver uma pitada de evidência empírica para apoiar essa teoria: inserir uma chamada em GC.Collect() às vezes parece fazer com que o problema desapareça.

Em quase todos os casos que temos visto, chamar GC.Collect() é a coisa errada a se fazer. Na verdade, chamar GC.Collect() pode causar problemas de desempenho isso for feito com demasiada frequência.
References
[1] Scott Holden The perils of GC.Collect()
[2] Rico Mariani Performance Tidbits
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 664
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[33] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.structural.dotnet.code_correctness_call_to_gc_collect