Reino: Input Validation and Representation

Problemas de validação e representação da entrada são causados por metacaracteres, codificações alternativas e representações numéricas. Confiar na entrada resulta em problemas de segurança. Os problemas incluem: “Buffer Overflows”, ataques de “Cross-Site Scripting”, “SQL Injection”, entre outros.

183 itens encontrados
Vulnerabilidades
Abstract
Construir uma instrução de seleção SimpleDB que contém entradas do usuário pode permitir que um invasor visualize registros não autorizados.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de injeção de string de consulta ocorrem quando:
1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.



2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma string de consulta SimpleDB.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta select() SimpleDB que procura faturas correspondentes a uma categoria de produto especificada pelo usuário. O usuário também pode especificar a coluna pela qual os resultados são classificados. Suponha que o aplicativo já tenha sido devidamente autenticado e defina o valor de customerID antes desse segmento de código.


...
String customerID = getAuthenticatedCustomerID(customerName, customerCredentials);
...
AmazonSimpleDBClient sdbc = new AmazonSimpleDBClient(appAWSCredentials);
String query = "select * from invoices where productCategory = '"
+ productCategory + "' and customerID = '"
+ customerID + "' order by '"
+ sortColumn + "' asc";
SelectResult sdbResult = sdbc.select(new SelectRequest(query));
...


A consulta que esse código pretende executar se parece com a seguinte:


select * from invoices
where productCategory = 'Fax Machines'
and customerID = '12345678'
order by 'price' asc


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se productCategory e price não contiverem caracteres de aspas simples. Porém, se um invasor fornecer a string "Fax Machines' or productCategory = \"" para productCategory e a string "\" order by 'price" para sortColumn, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


select * from invoices
where productCategory = 'Fax Machines' or productCategory = "'
and customerID = '12345678'
order by '" order by 'price' asc


ou, de uma forma mais legível,


select * from invoices
where productCategory = 'Fax Machines'
or productCategory = "' and customerID = '12345678' order by '"
order by 'price' asc


Essas entradas permitem que um invasor ignore a autenticação necessária para customerID e permite que ele veja registros de faturas correspondentes a 'Fax Machines' para todos os clientes.
References
[1] Secure Use of Cloud Storage
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.java.query_string_injection_amazon_web_services
Abstract
Construir uma instrução de consulta SQLite que contém entradas do usuário pode permitir que um invasor visualize registros não autorizados.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de injeção de string de consulta ocorrem quando:
1. Os dados entram em um programa por uma fonte não confiável.



Nesse caso, o Fortify Static Code Analyzer não conseguiu determinar se a fonte dos dados é confiável.

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

A injeção de strings de consulta SQLite permite que usuários mal-intencionados visualizem registros não autorizados, mas não permite que eles alterem o estado do banco de dados de qualquer maneira.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQLite que procura faturas associadas a um cliente e uma categoria de produto especificada pelo usuário. O usuário também pode especificar a coluna pela qual os resultados devem ser classificados. Suponha que o programa já tenha sido devidamente autenticado e defina o valor de customerID antes desse segmento de código.


...
productCategory = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("productCategory");
sortColumn = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("sortColumn");
customerID = getAuthenticatedCustomerID(customerName, customerCredentials);
c = invoicesDB.query(Uri.parse(invoices), columns, "productCategory = '" + productCategory + "' and customerID = '" + customerID + "'", null, null, null, "'" + sortColumn + "'asc", null);
...


A consulta que esse código pretende executar se parece com a seguinte:


select * from invoices
where productCategory = 'Fax Machines'
and customerID = '12345678'
order by 'price' asc


No entanto, a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma cadeia de consulta base constante e de uma cadeia de entrada do usuário productCategory. Portanto, ela se comportará corretamente somente se productCategory e sortColumn não contiverem caracteres de aspas simples. Se um invasor fornecer a string "Fax Machines' or productCategory = \"" para productCategory e a string "\" order by 'price" para sortColumn, a consulta se tornará:


select * from invoices
where productCategory = 'Fax Machines' or productCategory = "'
and customerID = '12345678'
order by '" order by 'price' asc


ou, de maneira mais legível,


select * from invoices
where productCategory = 'Fax Machines'
or productCategory = "' and customerID = '12345678' order by '"
order by 'price' asc


Essas entradas permitem que um invasor ignore a autenticação necessária para customerID e permite que ele veja registros de faturas correspondentes a 'Fax Machines' para todos os clientes.
References
[1] Android Developers-Reference: SQLite Database
[2] SQL as Understood by SQLite
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.semantic.java.query_string_injection_android_provider
Abstract
O aplicativo permite que um invasor crie um URL que força o download de um conteúdo arbitrário que parece ter se originado de um domínio confiável.
Explanation
O Reflected File Download (RFD) é uma vulnerabilidade que permite que um invasor crie um URL ou uma página de phishing que, quando visitada, inicia o download de um arquivo com conteúdo arbitrário que parece ter se originado de um domínio confiável. Como o usuário confia em um determinado domínio, é provável que ele abra o arquivo baixado, resultando possivelmente na execução de código mal-intencionado.

Para que um invasor execute um ataque RFD bem-sucedido, os seguintes requisitos devem ser atendidos:
- O aplicativo de destino reflete a entrada do usuário sem validação ou codificação adequada. Isso é usado para injetar uma carga útil.
- O aplicativo de destino permite URLs permissivos. O invasor pode, portanto, controlar o nome e a extensão do arquivo baixado.
- O aplicativo de destino tem um cabeçalho Content-Disposition configurado incorretamente, o que permite que o invasor controle os cabeçalhos Content-Type e/ou Content-Disposition na resposta HTTP ou o aplicativo de destino inclui um Content-Type que não é renderizado por padrão no navegador.

Por exemplo, se o aplicativo usa um Spring Web MVC ContentNegotiationManager para produzir dinamicamente diferentes formatos de resposta, ele atende às condições necessárias para tornar possível um ataque RFD.

O ContentNegotiationManager está configurado para decidir o formato de resposta com base na extensão do caminho do pedido e para usar o Java Activation Framework (JAF) para encontrar um Content-Type que melhor corresponda ao formato solicitado pelo cliente. Ele também permite que o cliente especifique o tipo de conteúdo de resposta por meio do tipo de mídia que é enviado no cabeçalho Accept da solicitação.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, o aplicativo é configurado para permitir a estratégia de extensão do caminho e o Java Activation Framework para determinar o tipo de conteúdo da resposta:


<bean id="contentNegotiationManager" class="org.springframework.web.accept.ContentNegotiationManagerFactoryBean">
<property name="favorPathExtension" value="true" />
<property name="useJaf" value="true" />
</bean>
Exemplo 2: No exemplo a seguir, o aplicativo é configurado para permitir o cabeçalho Accept da solicitação para determinar o tipo de conteúdo da resposta:


<bean id="contentNegotiationManager" class="org.springframework.web.accept.ContentNegotiationManagerFactoryBean">
<property name="ignoreAcceptHeader" value="false" />
</bean>


Observe que os padrões de configuração ContentNegotiationManagerFactoryBean no Spring 4.2.1 são:

- useJaf: true
- favorPathExtension: true
- ignoreAcceptHeader: false

A configuração mostrada no Example 1 permite que um invasor formule uma URL mal-intencionada, como:

http://server/some/resource/endpoint/foo.bat?input=payload

de maneira que ContentNegotiationManager usará o Java Activation Framework (se activation.jar for encontrado no classpath) para tentar resolver o tipo de mídia para a extensão de arquivo fornecida e definir o cabeçalho ContentType da solicitação de forma adequada. Neste exemplo, a extensão do arquivo é "bat", resultando em um cabeçalho Content-Type de application/x-msdownload (embora o Content-Type exato possa variar, dependendo do sistema operacional do servidor e da configuração JAF). Como resultado, assim que a vítima visitar esse URL mal-intencionado, sua máquina iniciará automaticamente o download de um arquivo ".bat" contendo conteúdo controlado pelo invasor. Se este arquivo for executado, a máquina das vítimas executará quaisquer comandos especificados pela carga útil do invasor.
References
[1] Oren Hafif Reflected File Download - A New Web Attack Vector
[2] Alvaro Munoz Reflected File Download in Spring MVC
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 233
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [1] CWE ID 079
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.config.java.reflected_file_download
Abstract
Permitir o controle externo de configurações do registro pode interromper o serviço ou fazer com que um aplicativo se comporte de maneiras inesperadas.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de manipulação do Registro ocorrem quando um invasor pode controlar valores que regem o comportamento do sistema, gerenciam recursos específicos ou afetam de alguma forma a funcionalidade do aplicativo.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 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 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
desc.dataflow.dotnet.registry_manipulation
Abstract
Permitir que a entrada do usuário controle identificadores de recurso pode permitir que um invasor acesse ou modifique recursos do sistema que de outra forma estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar um número de porta a ser usado para conexão com um recurso de rede.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.



Observação: Injeções de recursos que envolvem recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatados em uma categoria separada, denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa um nome de host lido de uma solicitação HTTP para criar uma conexão FTP.


...
host_name = request->get_form_field( 'host' ).
CALL FUNCTION 'FTP_CONNECT'
EXPORTING
USER = user
PASSWORD = password
HOST = host_name
RFC_DESTINATION = 'SAPFTP'
IMPORTING
HANDLE = mi_handle
EXCEPTIONS
NOT_CONNECTED = 1
OTHERS = 2.
...


O tipo de recurso afetado pela entrada do usuário indica o tipo de conteúdo que pode ser perigoso. Por exemplo, dados contendo caracteres especiais, como ponto final, barra e barra invertida, são arriscados quando utilizados em métodos que interagem com o sistema de arquivos. Da mesma forma, dados contendo URLs e URIs são arriscados para funções que criam conexões remotas.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.abap.resource_injection
Abstract
Permitir que a entrada do usuário controle identificadores de recurso pode permitir que um invasor acesse ou modifique recursos do sistema que de outra forma estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar um número de porta a ser usado para conexão com um recurso de rede.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.

Observação: Injeções de recursos que envolvem recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatados em uma categoria separada, denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa um número de porta lido de uma solicitação HTTP para criar um soquete.


int rPort = Int32.Parse(Request.Item("rPort"));
...
IPEndPoint endpoint = new IPEndPoint(address,rPort);
socket = new Socket(endpoint.AddressFamily,
SocketType.Stream, ProtocolType.Tcp);
socket.Connect(endpoint);
...


O tipo de recurso afetado pela entrada do usuário indica o tipo de conteúdo que pode ser perigoso. Por exemplo, dados contendo caracteres especiais, como ponto final, barra e barra invertida, são arriscados quando utilizados em métodos que interagem com o sistema de arquivos. Da mesma forma, dados contendo URLs e URIs são arriscados para funções que criam conexões remotas.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.resource_injection
Abstract
Permitir que a entrada do usuário controle identificadores de recurso pode permitir que um invasor acesse ou modifique recursos do sistema que de outra forma estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar um número de porta a ser usado para conexão com um recurso de rede.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.

Observação: Injeções de recursos que envolvem recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatados em uma categoria separada, denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa um número de porta lido de uma solicitação CGI para criar um soquete.


...
char* rPort = getenv("rPort");
...
serv_addr.sin_port = htons(atoi(rPort));
if (connect(sockfd,&serv_addr,sizeof(serv_addr)) < 0)
error("ERROR connecting");
...


O tipo de recurso afetado pela entrada do usuário indica o tipo de conteúdo que pode ser perigoso. Por exemplo, dados contendo caracteres especiais, como ponto final, barra e barra invertida, são arriscados quando utilizados em métodos que interagem com o sistema de arquivos. Da mesma forma, dados contendo URLs e URIs são arriscados para funções que criam conexões remotas.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cpp.resource_injection
Abstract
Permitir que a entrada do usuário controle identificadores de recurso pode permitir que um invasor acesse ou modifique recursos do sistema que de outra forma estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode especificar um número de porta a ser usado para conexão com um recurso de rede.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.



Observação: Injeções de recursos que envolvem recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatados em uma categoria separada, denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa o valor lido do terminal para acessar um registro da fila CICS desse nome.


...
ACCEPT QNAME.
EXEC CICS
READQ TD
QUEUE(QNAME)
INTO(DATA)
LENGTH(LDATA)
END-EXEC.
...


O tipo de recurso afetado pela entrada do usuário indica o tipo de conteúdo que pode ser perigoso. Por exemplo, dados contendo caracteres especiais, como ponto final, barra e barra invertida, são arriscados quando utilizados em métodos que interagem com o sistema de arquivos. Da mesma forma, dados contendo URLs e URIs são arriscados para funções que criam conexões remotas.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cobol.resource_injection
Abstract
Permitir que a entrada do usuário controle identificadores de recurso pode permitir que um invasor acesse ou modifique recursos do sistema que de outra forma estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar parte do nome de um arquivo a ser aberto ou um número de porta a ser usado.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de substituir o arquivo especificado ou executá-lo com uma configuração controlada pelo invasor.

Exemplo 1: O código ColdFusion a seguir cria um objeto ServerSocket Java e usa um número de porta lido de uma solicitação HTTP para criar um soquete.


<cfobject action="create" type="java" class="java.net.ServerSocket" name="myObj">
<cfset srvr = myObj.init(#url.port#)>
<cfset socket = srvr.accept()>

Passing user input to objects imported from other languages can be very dangerous.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.semantic.cfml.resource_injection
Abstract
Permitir que a entrada do usuário controle identificadores de recurso pode permitir que um invasor acesse ou modifique recursos do sistema que de outra forma estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar um número de porta e usá-lo para conexão com um recurso de rede.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.



Observação: Injeções de recursos que envolvem recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatados em uma categoria separada, denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa um número de porta lido de uma solicitação HTTP para criar um soquete.


final server = await HttpServer.bind('localhost', 18081);
server.listen((request) async {
final remotePort = headers.value('port');
final serverSocket = await ServerSocket.bind(host, remotePort as int);
final httpServer = HttpServer.listenOn(serverSocket);
});
...


Algumas pessoas acham que, no mundo móvel, vulnerabilidades clássicas de aplicativos Web, como injeção de recursos, não fazem sentido — por que usuários atacariam a si mesmos? No entanto, lembre-se de que a essência das plataformas móveis são aplicativos baixados de várias fontes e executados lado a lado no mesmo dispositivo. A probabilidade de execução de um malware junto com um aplicativo de banco é alta, o que exige a expansão da superfície de ataque de aplicativos móveis de forma a incluir comunicações entre processos.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dart.resource_injection
Abstract
Permitir que a entrada do usuário controle identificadores de recurso pode permitir que um invasor acesse ou modifique recursos do sistema que de outra forma estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar um número de porta a ser usado para conexão com um recurso de rede.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.



Observação: Injeções de recursos que envolvem recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatados em uma categoria separada, denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa um nome de dispositivo lido de uma solicitação HTTP para conectar, a fim de associar ao dispositivo o soquete associado com o fd.


func someHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request){
r.parseForm()
deviceName := r.FormValue("device")
...
syscall.BindToDevice(fd, deviceName)
}


O tipo de recurso afetado pela entrada do usuário indica o tipo de conteúdo que pode ser perigoso. Por exemplo, dados contendo caracteres especiais, como ponto final, barra e barra invertida, são arriscados quando utilizados em métodos que interagem com o sistema de arquivos. Da mesma forma, dados contendo URLs e URIs são arriscados para funções que criam conexões remotas.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.resource_injection
Abstract
Permitir que a entrada do usuário controle identificadores de recurso pode permitir que um invasor acesse ou modifique recursos do sistema que de outra forma estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar um número de porta a ser usado para conexão com um recurso de rede.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.



Observação: As injeções de recursos em que um usuário pode manipular o local dos recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatadas em uma categoria separada denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa um número de porta lido de uma solicitação HTTP para criar um soquete.


String remotePort = request.getParameter("remotePort");
...
ServerSocket srvr = new ServerSocket(remotePort);
Socket skt = srvr.accept();
...


Algumas pessoas acham que, no mundo móvel, vulnerabilidades clássicas de aplicativos Web, como a injeção de recursos, não fazem sentido -- por que um usuário atacaria ele próprio? No entanto, lembre-se de que a essência das plataformas móveis são aplicativos que são baixados de várias fontes e executados lado a lado no mesmo dispositivo. A probabilidade de execução de um malware junto com um aplicativo de banco é alta, o que exige a expansão da superfície de ataque de aplicativos móveis de forma a incluir comunicações entre processos.

Exemplo 2: O código a seguir usa uma URL lida de uma intenção do Android para carregar a página em WebView.


...
WebView webview = new WebView(this);
setContentView(webview);
String url = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("url");
webview.loadUrl(url);
...


O tipo de recurso afetado pela entrada do usuário indica o tipo de conteúdo que pode ser perigoso. Por exemplo, dados contendo caracteres especiais, como ponto final, barra e barra invertida, são arriscados quando utilizados em métodos que interagem com o sistema de arquivos. Da mesma forma, dados contendo URLs e URIs são arriscados para funções que criam conexões remotas.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.resource_injection
Abstract
Permitir que a entrada do usuário controle identificadores de recurso pode permitir que um invasor acesse ou modifique recursos do sistema que de outra forma estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar um número de porta a ser usado para conexão com um recurso de rede.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.



Observação: Injeções de recursos que envolvem recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatados em uma categoria separada, denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa um URL lido de uma solicitação HTTP para criar um soquete.


var socket = new WebSocket(document.URL.indexOf("url=")+20);


O tipo de recurso afetado pela entrada do usuário indica o tipo de conteúdo que pode ser perigoso. Por exemplo, dados contendo caracteres especiais, como ponto final, barra e barra invertida, são arriscados quando utilizados em métodos que interagem com o sistema de arquivos. Da mesma forma, dados contendo URLs e URIs são arriscados para funções que criam conexões remotas.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.resource_injection
Abstract
Os invasores podem controlar o argumento do identificador de recurso, o que pode permitir que eles acessem ou modifiquem recursos do sistema que, de outra forma, estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar um número de porta a ser utilizado para conectar-se a um recurso de rede ou a um local de origem de arquivos de entrada.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.

Observação: Injeções de recursos que envolvem recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatados em uma categoria separada, denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: Este código usa uma leitura de host a partir de uma solicitação:


...
char* rHost = getenv("host");
...
CFReadStreamRef readStream;
CFWriteStreamRef writeStream;
CFStreamCreatePairWithSocketToHost(NULL, (CFStringRef)rHost, 80, &readStream, &writeStream);
...


O tipo de recurso afetado pela entrada do usuário indica o tipo de conteúdo que pode ser perigoso. Por exemplo, dados contendo caracteres especiais, como ponto final, barra e barra invertida, são arriscados quando utilizados em métodos que interagem com o sistema de arquivos. Da mesma forma, dados contendo URLs e URIs são arriscados para funções que criam conexões remotas.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.objc.resource_injection
Abstract
Permitir que a entrada do usuário controle identificadores de recurso pode permitir que um invasor acesse ou modifique recursos do sistema que de outra forma estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar um número de porta a ser usado para conexão com um recurso de rede.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.



Observação: Injeções de recursos que envolvem recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatados em uma categoria separada, denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa o nome do host lido de uma solicitação HTTP para se conectar a um banco de dados, que determina o preço de um tíquete.


<?php
$host=$_GET['host'];
$dbconn = pg_connect("host=$host port=1234 dbname=ticketdb");
...
$result = pg_prepare($dbconn, "my_query", 'SELECT * FROM pricelist WHERE name = $1');
$result = pg_execute($dbconn, "my_query", array("ticket"));
?>


O tipo de recurso afetado pela entrada do usuário indica o tipo de conteúdo que pode ser perigoso. Por exemplo, dados contendo caracteres especiais, como ponto final, barra e barra invertida, são arriscados quando utilizados em métodos que interagem com o sistema de arquivos. Da mesma forma, dados contendo URLs e URIs são arriscados para funções que criam conexões remotas.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.resource_injection
Abstract
Permitir que a entrada do usuário controle identificadores de recurso pode permitir que um invasor acesse ou modifique recursos do sistema que de outra forma estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

3. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar um número de porta a ser usado para conexão com um recurso de rede.

4. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.

Observação: Injeções de recursos que envolvem recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatados em uma categoria separada, denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa uma variável de ambiente CGI como uma URL de um documento a ser baixado.


...
filename := SUBSTR(OWA_UTIL.get_cgi_env('PATH_INFO'), 2);
WPG_DOCLOAD.download_file(filename);
...


O tipo de recurso afetado pela entrada do usuário indica o tipo de conteúdo que pode ser perigoso. Por exemplo, os dados que contêm caracteres especiais, como ponto, barra e barra invertida são arriscados quando usados em funções que interagem com o sistema de arquivos. Da mesma forma, dados contendo URLs e URIs são arriscados para funções que criam conexões remotas.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.sql.resource_injection
Abstract
Permitir que a entrada do usuário controle identificadores de recurso pode permitir que um invasor acesse ou modifique recursos do sistema que de outra forma estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar um número de porta a ser usado para conexão com um recurso de rede.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.



Observação: Injeções de recursos que envolvem recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatados em uma categoria separada, denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa o nome do host lido de uma solicitação HTTP para se conectar a um banco de dados, que determina o preço de um tíquete.


host=request.GET['host']
dbconn = db.connect(host=host, port=1234, dbname=ticketdb)
c = dbconn.cursor()
...
result = c.execute('SELECT * FROM pricelist')
...


O tipo de recurso afetado pela entrada do usuário indica o tipo de conteúdo que pode ser perigoso. Por exemplo, dados contendo caracteres especiais, como ponto final, barra e barra invertida, são arriscados quando utilizados em métodos que interagem com o sistema de arquivos. Da mesma forma, dados contendo URLs e URIs são arriscados para funções que criam conexões remotas.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.resource_injection
Abstract
Permitir que a entrada do usuário controle identificadores de recurso pode permitir que um invasor acesse ou modifique recursos do sistema que de outra forma estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recursos ocorre quando as duas condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar um número de porta a ser usado para conexão com um recurso de rede.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.



Observação: Injeções de recursos que envolvem recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatados em uma categoria separada, denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa uma string lida de uma solicitação HTTP como a chave para armazenar em cache os dados do usuário conectado.


def controllerMethod = Action { request =>
val result = request.getQueryString("key").map { key =>
val user = db.getUser()
cache.set(key, user)
Ok("Cached Request")
}
Ok("Done")
}


O tipo de recurso afetado pela entrada do usuário indica o tipo de conteúdo que pode ser perigoso. Por exemplo, dados contendo caracteres especiais, como ponto final, barra e barra invertida, são arriscados quando utilizados em métodos que interagem com o sistema de arquivos. Da mesma forma, dados contendo URLs e URIs são arriscados para funções que criam conexões remotas.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.scala.resource_injection
Abstract
Os invasores podem controlar o argumento do identificador de recurso, o que pode permitir que eles acessem ou modifiquem recursos do sistema que, de outra forma, estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar um número de porta a ser utilizado para conectar-se a um recurso de rede ou a um local de origem de arquivos de entrada.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.

Observação: Injeções de recursos que envolvem recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatados em uma categoria separada, denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: Este código usa uma leitura de host a partir de uma solicitação:


...
func application(app: UIApplication, openURL url: NSURL, options: [String : AnyObject]) -> Bool {
var inputStream : NSInputStream?
var outputStream : NSOutputStream?
...
var readStream : Unmanaged<CFReadStream>?
var writeStream : Unmanaged<CFWriteStream>?
let rHost = getQueryStringParameter(url.absoluteString, "host")
CFStreamCreatePairWithSocketToHost(kCFAllocatorDefault, rHost, 80, &readStream, &writeStream);
...
}
func getQueryStringParameter(url: String?, param: String) -> String? {
if let url = url, urlComponents = NSURLComponents(string: url), queryItems = (urlComponents.queryItems as? [NSURLQueryItem]) {
return queryItems.filter({ (item) in item.name == param }).first?.value!
}
return nil
}
...


O tipo de recurso afetado pela entrada do usuário indica o tipo de conteúdo que pode ser perigoso. Por exemplo, dados contendo caracteres especiais, como ponto final, barra e barra invertida, são arriscados quando utilizados em métodos que interagem com o sistema de arquivos. Da mesma forma, dados contendo URLs e URIs são arriscados para funções que criam conexões remotas.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.resource_injection
Abstract
Permitir que a entrada do usuário controle identificadores de recurso pode permitir que um invasor acesse ou modifique recursos do sistema que de outra forma estariam protegidos.
Explanation
Um problema de injeção de recurso ocorre quando as condições a seguir são atendidas:

1. Um invasor pode especificar o identificador usado para acessar um recurso do sistema.

Por exemplo, um invasor pode ser capaz de especificar um número de porta a ser usado para conexão com um recurso de rede.

2. Ao especificar o recurso, o invasor adquire uma capacidade que, de outra forma, não seria permitida.

Por exemplo, o programa pode dar ao invasor a capacidade de transmitir informações confidenciais a um servidor de terceiros.



Observação: Injeções de recursos que envolvem recursos armazenados no sistema de arquivos são relatados em uma categoria separada, denominada manipulação de caminho. Consulte a descrição da manipulação de caminho para obter mais detalhes sobre essa vulnerabilidade.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir usa um número de porta lido de uma solicitação HTTP para criar um soquete.


...
Begin MSWinsockLib.Winsock tcpServer
...
Dim Response As Response
Dim Request As Request
Dim Session As Session
Dim Application As Application
Dim Server As Server
Dim Port As Variant
Set Response = objContext("Response")
Set Request = objContext("Request")
Set Session = objContext("Session")
Set Application = objContext("Application")
Set Server = objContext("Server")
Set Port = Request.Form("port")
...
tcpServer.LocalPort = Port
tcpServer.Accept
...



O tipo de recurso afetado pela entrada do usuário indica o tipo de conteúdo que pode ser perigoso. Por exemplo, dados contendo caracteres especiais, como ponto final, barra e barra invertida, são arriscados quando utilizados em métodos que interagem com o sistema de arquivos. Da mesma forma, dados contendo URLs e URIs são arriscados para funções que criam conexões remotas.
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.vb.resource_injection
Abstract
O aplicativo reflete um parâmetro controlável pelo usuários como a função de retorno de chamada JavaScript a ser executada pelo navegador, o que pode permitir que um invasor execute funções JavaScript arbitrárias em quaisquer páginas do mesmo domínio do ponto de extremidade.
Explanation
O aplicativo usa um parâmetro sob o controle do invasor como o nome de uma função JavaScript que o navegador executará. Um invasor pode criar um site mal-intencionado que inicializa uma página de destino no mesmo domínio do aplicativo e, em seguida, faz referência à página vulnerável para executar uma função JavaScript arbitrária na página de destino. O impacto desse ataque é semelhante ao impacto do Cross-Site Scripting, embora existam algumas restrições de exploração importantes. Se os caracteres alfanuméricos e de pontos puderem ser usados como o nome de retorno de chamada, o invasor poderá fazer referência dos elementos da página e interagir com eles.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir cria uma resposta JSONP na qual o nome da função de retorno de chamada pode ser controlado pelo usuário.


@ControllerAdvice
public class JsonpAdvice extends AbstractJsonpResponseBodyAdvice {
public JsonpAdvice() {
super("callback");
}
}


Para uma solicitação, como GET /api/latest.json?callback=myCallbackFunction, o método do controlador gerará uma resposta do tipo:


HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
Content-Type: application/json; charset=utf-8
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:16:04 GMT
Server: nginx/1.12.1
Content-Length: 225
Connection: Close

myCallbackFunction({<json>})


O invasor pode usar uma tag JavaScript Script para carregar a resposta do ponto de extremidade JSONP, que se transformará na execução da função myCallbackFunction. Um invasor poderia usar um nome de retorno de chamada diferente para navegar e interagir com o DOM. Por exemplo, opener.document.body.someElemnt.firstChild.nextElementSibling.submit poderia ser usado para localizar um formulário na página de destino e enviá-lo.
References
[1] Ben Hayak Same Origin Method Execution (SOME)
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
desc.semantic.java.same_origin_method_execution
Abstract
O aplicativo reflete um parâmetro controlável pelo usuários como a função de retorno de chamada JavaScript a ser executada pelo navegador, o que pode permitir que um invasor execute funções JavaScript arbitrárias em quaisquer páginas do mesmo domínio do ponto de extremidade.
Explanation
O aplicativo usa um parâmetro sob o controle do invasor como o nome de uma função JavaScript que o navegador executará. Um invasor pode criar um site mal-intencionado que inicializa uma página de destino no mesmo domínio do aplicativo e, em seguida, faz referência à página vulnerável para executar uma função JavaScript arbitrária na página de destino. O impacto desse ataque é semelhante ao impacto do Cross-Site Scripting, embora existam algumas restrições de exploração importantes. Se os caracteres alfanuméricos e de pontos puderem ser usados como o nome de retorno de chamada, o invasor poderá fazer referência dos elementos da página e interagir com eles.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir cria uma resposta JSONP na qual o nome da função de retorno de chamada pode ser controlado pelo usuário.


def myJSONPService(callback: String) = Action {
val json = getJSONToBeReturned()
Ok(Jsonp(callback, json))
}


Para uma solicitação, como GET /api/latest.json?callback=myCallbackFunction, o método do controlador descrito em Example 1 gerará uma resposta do tipo:


HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
Content-Type: application/json; charset=utf-8
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:16:04 GMT
Server: nginx/1.12.1
Content-Length: 225
Connection: Close

myCallbackFunction({<json>})


O invasor pode usar uma tag JavaScript Script para carregar a resposta do ponto de extremidade JSONP, que se transformará na execução da função myCallbackFunction. Um invasor poderia usar um nome de retorno de chamada diferente para navegar e interagir com o DOM. Por exemplo, opener.document.body.someElemnt.firstChild.nextElementSibling.submit poderia ser usado para localizar um formulário na página de destino e enviá-lo.
References
[1] Ben Hayak Same Origin Method Execution (SOME)
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
desc.dataflow.scala.same_origin_method_execution
Abstract
Definir sanitizeValue como false permite que entradas não sanitizadas levem a vulnerabilidades, como Cross-Site Scripting.
Explanation
A propriedade sanitizeValue determina se o sanitizador de HTML deve ser executado ou não quando o valor é aplicado à marcação HTML. A entrada pode vir diretamente do usuário e, portanto, pode ser considerada não segura. A propriedade sanitizeValue pode ser definida como false por diversos motivos, como permitir caracteres de entrada adicionais. Entretanto isso pode permitir inadvertidamente que entradas não seguras do usuário sejam executadas no código. É mais seguro definir a propriedade sanitizeValue como true, que é o valor padrão.

Exemplo 1: Confira a seguir a definição da propriedade sanitizeValue no RichTextEditor do SAPUI5 como false:

new RichTextEditor({
sanitizeValue: false,
value: input
}).placeAt("moreContent");
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 1173
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.dataflow.javascript.sapui5_misconfiguration_unsanitized_editor
Abstract
O aplicativo inicia uma conexão de rede com um sistema de terceiros usando dados controlados pelo usuário para criar o URI de recurso.
Explanation
Uma Falsificação de Solicitação no Lado do Servidor ocorre quando um invasor pode influenciar uma conexão de rede estabelecida pelo servidor de aplicativos. A conexão de rede se origina do IP interno do servidor de aplicativos, e um invasor pode usar essa conexão para ignorar os controles de rede e verificar ou atacar recursos internos que não seriam expostos.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, um invasor pode controlar a URL à qual o servidor está se conectando.


...
lv_uri = request->get_form_field( 'uri' ).
CALL METHOD cl_http_utility=>set_request_uri
EXPORTING
request = lo_request
uri = lv_uri.
...


A capacidade do invasor de sequestrar a conexão de rede depende da parte específica do URI que pode ser controlada e das bibliotecas usadas para estabelecer a conexão. Por exemplo, controlar o esquema de URI permite que o invasor use protocolos diferentes de http ou https, como:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

Um invasor pode aproveitar essa conexão de rede sequestrada para executar os seguintes ataques:

- Varredura de portas de recursos de intranet.
- Desvio de firewalls.
- Ataque a problemas vulneráveis em execução no servidor de aplicativos ou na Intranet.
- Ataque a aplicativos Web internos/externos usando ataques de Injeção ou CSRF.
- Acesso a arquivos locais usando o esquema file://.
- Em sistemas Windows, o esquema file:// e caminhos UNC podem permitir que um invasor varra e acesse compartilhamentos internos.
- Realização de um ataque de envenenamento de cache DNS.

References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.abap.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
O aplicativo inicia uma conexão de rede com um sistema de terceiros usando dados controlados pelo usuário para criar o URI de recurso.
Explanation
Uma Falsificação de Solicitação no Lado do Servidor ocorre quando um invasor pode influenciar uma conexão de rede estabelecida pelo servidor de aplicativos. A conexão de rede se originará do IP interno do servidor de aplicativos, e um invasor pode usar essa conexão para ignorar os controles de rede e verificar ou atacar recursos internos que não seriam expostos.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, um invasor pode controlar a URL à qual o servidor está se conectando.


...
PageReference ref = ApexPages.currentPage();
Map<String,String> params = ref.getParameters();
HttpRequest req = new HttpRequest();
req.setEndpoint(params.get('url'));
HTTPResponse res = new Http().send(req);


A capacidade do invasor de sequestrar a conexão de rede depende da parte específica do URI que pode ser controlada e das bibliotecas usadas para estabelecer a conexão. Por exemplo, controlar o esquema de URI permite que o invasor use protocolos diferentes de http ou https, como:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

Um invasor pode aproveitar essa conexão de rede sequestrada para executar os seguintes tipos de ataques:

- Varredura de portas de recursos de intranet.
- Desvio de firewalls.
- Ataque a problemas vulneráveis em execução no servidor de aplicativos ou na Intranet.
- Ataque a aplicativos Web internos/externos usando ataques de Injeção ou CSRF.
- Realização de um ataque de envenenamento de cache DNS.

References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.apex.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
O aplicativo inicia uma conexão de rede com um sistema de terceiros usando dados controlados pelo usuário para criar o URI de recurso.
Explanation
Uma Falsificação de Solicitação no Lado do Servidor ocorre quando um invasor pode influenciar uma conexão de rede estabelecida pelo servidor de aplicativos. A conexão de rede se originará do IP interno do servidor de aplicativos, e um invasor pode usar essa conexão para ignorar os controles de rede e verificar ou atacar recursos internos que não seriam expostos.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, um invasor pode controlar a URL à qual o servidor está se conectando.


string url = Request.Form["url"];
HttpClient client = new HttpClient();
HttpResponseMessage response = await client.GetAsync(url);


A capacidade do invasor de sequestrar a conexão de rede depende da parte específica do URI que pode ser controlada e das bibliotecas usadas para estabelecer a conexão. Por exemplo, controlar o esquema de URI permite que o invasor use protocolos diferentes de http ou https, como:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

Um invasor pode aproveitar essa conexão de rede sequestrada para executar os seguintes ataques:

- Varredura de portas de recursos de intranet.
- Desvio de firewalls.
- Ataque a problemas vulneráveis em execução no servidor de aplicativos ou na Intranet.
- Ataque a aplicativos Web internos/externos usando ataques de Injeção ou CSRF.
- Acesso a arquivos locais usando o esquema file://.
- Em sistemas Windows, o esquema file:// e caminhos UNC podem permitir que um invasor varra e acesse compartilhamentos internos.
- Realização de um ataque de envenenamento de cache DNS.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
O aplicativo inicia uma conexão de rede com um sistema de terceiros usando dados controlados pelo usuário para criar o URI de recurso.
Explanation
Uma Falsificação de Solicitação no Lado do Servidor ocorre quando um invasor pode influenciar uma conexão de rede estabelecida pelo servidor de aplicativos. A conexão de rede se originará do IP interno do servidor de aplicativos, e um invasor pode usar essa conexão para ignorar os controles de rede e verificar ou atacar recursos internos que não seriam expostos.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, um invasor pode controlar a URL à qual o servidor está se conectando.


char *url = maliciousInput();
CURL *curl = curl_easy_init();
curl_easy_setopt(curl, CURLOPT_URL, url);
CURLcode res = curl_easy_perform(curl);


A capacidade de um invasor de sequestrar a conexão de rede depende da parte específica do URI que pode ser controlada e das bibliotecas usadas para estabelecer a conexão. Por exemplo, controlar o esquema de URI permite que o invasor use protocolos diferentes de http ou https, como:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

Um invasor pode aproveitar essa conexão de rede sequestrada para executar os seguintes ataques:

- Varredura de portas de recursos de intranet.
- Desvio de firewalls.
- Ataque a problemas vulneráveis em execução no servidor de aplicativos ou na Intranet.
- Ataque a aplicativos Web internos/externos usando ataques de Injeção ou CSRF.
- Acesse arquivos locais usando o esquema file://.
- Em sistemas Windows, o uso do esquema file:// e de caminhos UNC pode permitir que um invasor verifique e acesse compartilhamentos internos.
- Realização de um ataque de envenenamento de cache DNS.

References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.cpp.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
O aplicativo inicia uma conexão de rede com um sistema de terceiros usando dados controlados pelo usuário para criar o URI de recurso.
Explanation
Uma Falsificação de Solicitação no Lado do Servidor ocorre quando um invasor pode influenciar uma conexão de rede estabelecida pelo servidor de aplicativos. A conexão de rede se origina do IP interno do servidor de aplicativos, e um invasor pode usar essa conexão para ignorar os controles de rede e verificar ou atacar recursos internos que não seriam expostos.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, um invasor pode controlar a URL à qual o servidor está se conectando.


...
final server = await HttpServer.bind('localhost', 18081);
server.listen((request) async {
final headers = request.headers;
final url = headers.value('url');
final client = IOClient();
final response = await client.get(Uri.parse(url!));
...
}


A capacidade do invasor de sequestrar a conexão de rede depende da parte específica do URI que pode ser controlada e das bibliotecas usadas para estabelecer a conexão. Por exemplo, controlar o esquema de URI permite que o invasor use protocolos diferentes de http ou https, como:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

Um invasor pode aproveitar essa conexão de rede sequestrada para executar os seguintes ataques:

- Varredura de portas de recursos de intranet.
- Desvio de firewalls.
- Ataque a problemas vulneráveis em execução no servidor de aplicativos ou na Intranet.
- Ataque a aplicativos Web internos/externos usando ataques de Injeção ou CSRF.
- Acesso a arquivos locais usando o esquema file://.
- Em sistemas Windows, o esquema file:// e caminhos UNC podem permitir que um invasor varra e acesse compartilhamentos internos.
- Realização de um ataque de envenenamento de cache DNS.

References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.dart.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
O aplicativo inicia uma conexão de rede com um sistema de terceiros usando dados controlados pelo usuário para criar o URI de recurso.
Explanation
Server-Side Request Forgery ocorre quando um invasor pode influenciar uma conexão de rede estabelecida pelo servidor de aplicativos. A conexão de rede se origina do endereço IP interno do servidor de aplicativos, e um invasor pode usar essa conexão para ignorar os controles de rede e verificar ou atacar recursos internos que não seriam expostos.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, um invasor pode controlar a URL à qual o servidor está se conectando.


url := request.Form.Get("url")
res, err =: http.Get(url)
...


A capacidade do invasor de sequestrar a conexão de rede depende da parte específica do URI que pode ser controlada e das bibliotecas usadas para estabelecer a conexão. Por exemplo, controlar o esquema de URI permite que o invasor use protocolos diferentes de http ou https, como:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

Um invasor pode aproveitar essa conexão de rede sequestrada para executar os seguintes ataques:

- Varredura de portas de recursos de intranet.
- Desvio de firewalls.
- Ataque a problemas vulneráveis em execução no servidor de aplicativos ou na Intranet.
- Ataque a aplicativos Web internos/externos usando ataques de Injeção ou CSRF.
- Acesso a arquivos locais usando o esquema file://.
- Varredura e acesso a compartilhamentos internos em sistemas Windows com esquema file:// e caminhos UNC.
- Realização de um ataque de envenenamento de cache DNS.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.golang.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
O aplicativo inicia uma conexão de rede com um sistema de terceiros usando dados controlados pelo usuário para criar o URI de recurso.
Explanation
Uma Falsificação de Solicitação no Lado do Servidor ocorre quando um invasor pode influenciar uma conexão de rede estabelecida pelo servidor de aplicativos. A conexão de rede se originará do IP interno do servidor de aplicativos, e um invasor pode usar essa conexão para ignorar os controles de rede e verificar ou atacar recursos internos que não seriam expostos.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, um invasor pode controlar a URL à qual o servidor está se conectando.


String url = request.getParameter("url");
CloseableHttpClient httpclient = HttpClients.createDefault();
HttpGet httpGet = new HttpGet(url);
CloseableHttpResponse response1 = httpclient.execute(httpGet);


A capacidade do invasor de sequestrar a conexão de rede depende da parte específica do URI que pode ser controlada e das bibliotecas usadas para estabelecer a conexão. Por exemplo, controlar o esquema de URI permite que o invasor use protocolos diferentes de http ou https, como:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

Um invasor pode aproveitar essa conexão de rede sequestrada para executar os seguintes ataques:

- Varredura de portas de recursos de intranet.
- Desvio de firewalls.
- Ataque a problemas vulneráveis em execução no servidor de aplicativos ou na Intranet.
- Ataque a aplicativos Web internos/externos usando ataques de Injeção ou CSRF.
- Acesso a arquivos locais usando o esquema file://.
- Em sistemas Windows, o esquema file:// e caminhos UNC podem permitir que um invasor varra e acesse compartilhamentos internos.
- Realização de um ataque de envenenamento de cache DNS.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.java.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
O aplicativo inicia uma conexão de rede com um sistema de terceiros usando dados controlados pelo usuário para criar o URI de recurso.
Explanation
Server-Side Request Forgery ocorre quando um invasor pode influenciar uma conexão de rede estabelecida pelo servidor de aplicativos. A conexão de rede se originará do endereço IP interno do servidor de aplicativos, e um invasor pode usar essa conexão para ignorar os controles de rede e verificar ou atacar recursos internos que não seriam expostos.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, um invasor pode controlar a URL à qual o servidor está se conectando.


var http = require('http');
var url = require('url');

function listener(request, response){
var request_url = url.parse(request.url, true)['query']['url'];
http.request(request_url)
...
}
...
http.createServer(listener).listen(8080);
...


A capacidade do invasor de sequestrar a conexão de rede depende da parte específica do URI que pode ser controlada e das bibliotecas usadas para estabelecer a conexão. Por exemplo, controlar o esquema de URI permite que o invasor use protocolos diferentes de http ou https, como:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

Um invasor pode aproveitar essa conexão de rede sequestrada para executar os seguintes ataques:

- Varredura de portas de recursos de intranet.
- Desvio de firewalls.
- Ataque a problemas vulneráveis em execução no servidor de aplicativos ou na Intranet.
- Ataque a aplicativos Web internos/externos usando ataques de Injeção ou CSRF.
- Acesso a arquivos locais usando o esquema file://.
- Em sistemas Windows, o esquema file:// e caminhos UNC podem permitir que um invasor varra e acesse compartilhamentos internos.
- Realização de um ataque de envenenamento de cache DNS.
References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.javascript.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
O aplicativo inicia uma conexão de rede com um sistema de terceiros usando dados controlados pelo usuário para criar o URI de recurso.
Explanation
Uma Falsificação de Solicitação no Lado do Servidor ocorre quando um invasor pode influenciar uma conexão de rede estabelecida pelo servidor de aplicativos. A conexão de rede se originará do IP interno do servidor de aplicativos, e um invasor pode usar essa conexão para ignorar os controles de rede e verificar ou atacar recursos internos que não seriam expostos.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, um invasor pode controlar a URL à qual o servidor está se conectando.


val url: String = request.getParameter("url")
val httpclient: CloseableHttpClient = HttpClients.createDefault()
val httpGet = HttpGet(url)
val response1: CloseableHttpResponse = httpclient.execute(httpGet)


A capacidade do invasor de sequestrar a conexão de rede depende da parte específica do URI que pode ser controlada e das bibliotecas usadas para estabelecer a conexão. Por exemplo, controlar o esquema de URI permite que o invasor use protocolos diferentes de http ou https, como:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

Um invasor pode aproveitar essa conexão de rede sequestrada para executar os seguintes ataques:

- Varredura de portas de recursos de intranet.
- Desvio de firewalls.
- Ataque a problemas vulneráveis em execução no servidor de aplicativos ou na Intranet.
- Ataque a aplicativos Web internos/externos usando ataques de Injeção ou CSRF.
- Acesso a arquivos locais usando o esquema file://.
- Em sistemas Windows, o esquema file:// e caminhos UNC podem permitir que um invasor varra e acesse compartilhamentos internos.
- Realização de um ataque de envenenamento de cache DNS.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.kotlin.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
O aplicativo inicia uma conexão de rede com um sistema de terceiros usando dados controlados pelo usuário para criar o URI de recurso.
Explanation
Uma Falsificação de Solicitação no Lado do Servidor ocorre quando um invasor pode influenciar uma conexão de rede estabelecida pelo servidor de aplicativos. A conexão de rede será originada do endereço IP interno do servidor de aplicativos, e um invasor será capaz de usar essa conexão para ignorar controles de rede e varrer ou atacar recursos internos que, caso contrário, não ficariam expostos.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, um invasor pode controlar a URL à qual o servidor está se conectando.


$url = $_GET['url'];
$c = curl_init();
curl_setopt($c, CURLOPT_POST, 0);
curl_setopt($c,CURLOPT_URL,$url);
$response=curl_exec($c);
curl_close($c);


A capacidade do invasor de sequestrar a conexão de rede depende da parte específica do URI que pode ser controlada e das bibliotecas usadas para estabelecer a conexão. Por exemplo, controlar o esquema de URI permite que o invasor use protocolos diferentes de http ou https, como:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

Um invasor pode aproveitar essa conexão de rede sequestrada para executar os seguintes ataques:

- Varredura de portas de recursos de intranet.
- Desvio de firewalls.
- Ataque a problemas vulneráveis em execução no servidor de aplicativos ou na Intranet.
- Ataque a aplicativos Web internos/externos usando ataques de Injeção ou CSRF.
- Acesso a arquivos locais usando o esquema file://.
- Em sistemas Windows, o esquema file:// e caminhos UNC podem permitir que um invasor varra e acesse compartilhamentos internos.
- Realização de um ataque de envenenamento de cache DNS.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.php.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
O aplicativo inicia uma conexão de rede com um sistema de terceiros usando dados controlados pelo usuário para criar o URI de recurso.
Explanation
Uma Falsificação de Solicitação no Lado do Servidor ocorre quando um invasor pode influenciar uma conexão de rede estabelecida pelo servidor de aplicativos. A conexão de rede será originada do endereço IP interno do servidor de aplicativos, e um invasor será capaz de usar essa conexão para ignorar controles de rede e varrer ou atacar recursos internos que, caso contrário, não ficariam expostos.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, um invasor pode controlar a URL à qual o servidor está se conectando.


url = request.GET['url']
handle = urllib.urlopen(url)


A capacidade do invasor de sequestrar a conexão de rede depende da parte específica do URI que pode ser controlada e das bibliotecas usadas para estabelecer a conexão. Por exemplo, controlar o esquema de URI permite que o invasor use protocolos diferentes de http ou https, como:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

Um invasor pode aproveitar essa conexão de rede sequestrada para executar os seguintes ataques:

- Varredura de portas de recursos de intranet.
- Desvio de firewalls.
- Ataque a problemas vulneráveis em execução no servidor de aplicativos ou na Intranet.
- Ataque a aplicativos Web internos/externos usando ataques de Injeção ou CSRF.
- Acesso a arquivos locais usando o esquema file://.
- Em sistemas Windows, o esquema file:// e caminhos UNC podem permitir que um invasor varra e acesse compartilhamentos internos.
- Realização de um ataque de envenenamento de cache DNS.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.python.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
O aplicativo inicia uma conexão de rede com um sistema de terceiros usando dados controlados pelo usuário para criar o URI de recurso.
Explanation
Uma Falsificação de Solicitação no Lado do Servidor ocorre quando um invasor pode influenciar uma conexão de rede estabelecida pelo servidor de aplicativos. A conexão de rede será originada do endereço IP interno do servidor de aplicativos, e um invasor será capaz de usar essa conexão para ignorar controles de rede e varrer ou atacar recursos internos que, caso contrário, não ficariam expostos.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, um invasor pode controlar a URL à qual o servidor está se conectando.


url = req['url']
Net::HTTP.get(url)


A capacidade do invasor de sequestrar a conexão de rede depende da parte específica do URI que pode ser controlada e das bibliotecas usadas para estabelecer a conexão. Por exemplo, controlar o esquema de URI permite que o invasor use protocolos diferentes de http ou https, como:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

Um invasor pode aproveitar essa conexão de rede sequestrada para executar os seguintes ataques:

- Varredura de portas de recursos de intranet.
- Desvio de firewalls.
- Ataque a problemas vulneráveis em execução no servidor de aplicativos ou na Intranet.
- Ataque a aplicativos Web internos/externos usando ataques de Injeção ou CSRF.
- Acesso a arquivos locais usando o esquema file://.
- Em sistemas Windows, o esquema file:// e caminhos UNC podem permitir que um invasor varra e acesse compartilhamentos internos.
- Realização de um ataque de envenenamento de cache DNS.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.ruby.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
O aplicativo inicia uma conexão de rede com um sistema de terceiros usando dados controlados pelo usuário para criar o URI de recurso.
Explanation
Uma Falsificação de Solicitação no Lado do Servidor ocorre quando um invasor pode influenciar uma conexão de rede estabelecida pelo servidor de aplicativos. A conexão de rede será originada do endereço IP interno do servidor de aplicativos, e um invasor será capaz de usar essa conexão para ignorar controles de rede e varrer ou atacar recursos internos que, caso contrário, não ficariam expostos.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, um invasor pode controlar a URL à qual o servidor está se conectando.


def getFile(url: String) = Action { request =>
...
val url = request.body.asText.getOrElse("http://google.com")

ws.url(url).get().map { response =>
Ok(s"Request sent to $url")
}
...
}


A capacidade do invasor de sequestrar a conexão de rede depende da parte específica do URI que pode ser controlada e das bibliotecas usadas para estabelecer a conexão. Por exemplo, controlar o esquema de URI permite que o invasor use protocolos diferentes de http ou https, como:

- up://
- ldap://
- jar://
- gopher://
- mailto://
- ssh2://
- telnet://
- expect://

Um invasor pode aproveitar essa conexão de rede sequestrada para executar os seguintes ataques:

- Varredura de portas de recursos de intranet.
- Desvio de firewalls.
- Ataque a problemas vulneráveis em execução no servidor de aplicativos ou na Intranet.
- Ataque a aplicativos Web internos/externos usando ataques de Injeção ou CSRF.
- Acesso a arquivos locais usando o esquema file://.
- Em sistemas Windows, o esquema file:// e caminhos UNC podem permitir que um invasor varra e acesse compartilhamentos internos.
- Realização de um ataque de envenenamento de cache DNS.

References
[1] Alexander Polyakov SSRF vs. Business critical applications BlackHat 2012
[2] SSRF bible. Cheatsheet ONSec Labs
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 918
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [24] CWE ID 918
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [21] CWE ID 918
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [19] CWE ID 918
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [19] CWE ID 918
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API7 Server Side Request Forgery
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.6 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.6.1 SSRF Protection Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A10 Server-Side Request Forgery
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.scala.server_side_request_forgery
Abstract
Os dados controlados pelo usuário são usados como um modelo do mecanismo de modelo, permitindo que os invasores acessem o contexto do modelo e, em alguns casos, injetem e executem código arbitrário no servidor de aplicativos.
Explanation
Mecanismos de modelo são usados para renderizar conteúdo usando dados dinâmicos. Esses dados de contexto normalmente são controlados pelo usuário e formatados pelo modelo para gerar páginas da Web, emails e semelhantes. Os mecanismos de modelo permitem que expressões de linguagem poderosas sejam usadas em modelos para renderizar conteúdo dinâmico mediante o processamento dos dados de contexto com construções de código como condicionais, loops, etc. Se um invasor conseguir controlar o modelo a ser renderizado, ele poderá injetar expressões que exporão dados de contexto ou até mesmo executarão comandos arbitrários no servidor.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir mostra como um modelo é recuperado de uma solicitação HTTP e renderizado.

// Set up the context data
VelocityContext context = new VelocityContext();
context.put( "name", user.name );

// Load the template
String template = getUserTemplateFromRequestBody(request);
RuntimeServices runtimeServices = RuntimeSingleton.getRuntimeServices();
StringReader reader = new StringReader(template);
SimpleNode node = runtimeServices.parse(reader, "myTemplate");
template = new Template();
template.setRuntimeServices(runtimeServices);
template.setData(node);
template.initDocument();

// Render the template with the context data
StringWriter sw = new StringWriter();
template.merge( context, sw );


O Example 1 usa Velocity como o mecanismo de modelo. Nesse mecanismo, um invasor pode enviar o seguinte modelo para executar comandos arbitrários no servidor:

$name.getClass().forName("java.lang.Runtime").getRuntime().exec(<COMMAND>)
References
[1] Server-Side Template Injection: RCE for the modern webapp
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 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)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.server_side_template_injection
Abstract
Os dados controlados pelo usuário são usados como um modelo do mecanismo de modelo, que permite que invasores acessem o contexto do modelo e, em alguns casos, injetem e executem código arbitrário no servidor de aplicativos.
Explanation
Mecanismos de modelo são usados para renderizar conteúdo usando dados dinâmicos. Esses dados de contexto normalmente são controlados pelo usuário e formatados pelo modelo para gerar páginas da Web, e-mails, entre outros. Os mecanismos de modelo permitem que expressões de linguagem poderosas sejam usadas em modelos para renderizar conteúdo dinâmico, processando os dados de contexto com construções de código como condicionais, loops etc. Se um invasor puder controlar o modelo a ser renderizado, poderá injetar expressões que exponham dados de contexto ou até executar comandos arbitrários no servidor.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir mostra como um modelo é recuperado de uma solicitação HTTP e renderizado.

app.get('/', function(req, res){
var template = _.template(req.params['template']);
res.write("<html><body><h2>Hello World!</h2>" + template() + "</body></html>");
});


O Example 1 usa Underscore.js como o mecanismo de modelo em um aplicativo Node.js. Nesse mecanismo, um invasor pode enviar o seguinte modelo para executar comandos arbitrários no servidor:

<% cp = process.mainModule.require('child_process');cp.exec(<COMMAND>); %>
References
[1] Server-Side Template Injection: RCE for the modern webapp
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 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)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.server_side_template_injection
Abstract
Os dados controlados pelo usuário são usados como um modelo do mecanismo de modelo, permitindo que os invasores acessem o contexto do modelo e, em alguns casos, injetem e executem código arbitrário no servidor de aplicativos.
Explanation
Mecanismos de modelo são usados para renderizar conteúdo usando dados dinâmicos. Esses dados de contexto normalmente são controlados pelo usuário e formatados pelo modelo para gerar páginas da Web, emails e semelhantes. Os mecanismos de modelo permitem que expressões de linguagem poderosas sejam usadas em modelos para renderizar conteúdo dinâmico, processando os dados de contexto com construções de código como condicionais, loops etc. Se um invasor puder controlar o modelo a ser renderizado, poderá injetar expressões que exponham dados de contexto ou até executar comandos arbitrários no servidor.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir mostra como um modelo é recuperado de uma solicitação HTTP e renderizado usando o mecanismo de modelo Jinja2.

from django.http import HttpResponse
from jinja2 import Template as Jinja2_Template
from jinja2 import Environment, DictLoader, escape

def process_request(request):
# Load the template
template = request.GET['template']
t = Jinja2_Template(template)
name = source(request.GET['name'])
# Render the template with the context data
html = t.render(name=escape(name))
return HttpResponse(html)


O Example 1 usa Jinja2 como o mecanismo de modelo. Nesse mecanismo, um invasor pode enviar o seguinte modelo para ler arquivos arbitrário do servidor:

template={{''.__class__.__mro__[2].__subclasses__()[40]('/etc/passwd').read()}}
Exemplo 2: O exemplo a seguir mostra como um modelo é recuperado de uma solicitação HTTP e renderizado usando o mecanismo de modelo Django.

from django.http import HttpResponse
from django.template import Template, Context, Engine

def process_request(request):
# Load the template
template = source(request.GET['template'])
t = Template(template)
user = {"name": "John", "secret":getToken()}
ctx = Context(locals())
html = t.render(ctx)
return HttpResponse(html)

O Example 2 usa Django como o mecanismo de modelo. Nesse mecanismo, um invasor não conseguirá executar comandos arbitrários, mas poderá acessar todos os objetos no contexto do modelo. Neste exemplo, um token secreto está disponível no contexto e poderia ser vazado pelo invasor.
References
[1] Server-Side Template Injection: RCE for the modern webapp BlackHat
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 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)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.server_side_template_injection
Abstract
Os invasores podem modificar os atributos da sessão Spring que podem levar ao abuso da lógica do aplicativo.
Explanation
Uma classe anotada com @SessionAttributes significará que o Spring replica as alterações nos atributos de modelo no objeto de sessão. Se um invasor for capaz de armazenar valores arbitrários dentro de um atributo de modelo, essas alterações serão replicadas no objeto de sessão, onde podem ser confiáveis pelo aplicativo. Se o atributo de sessão for inicializado com dados confiáveis que o usuário não deve poder modificar, o invasor poderá realizar um ataque de Session Puzzling e abusar da lógica do aplicativo.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte controlador contém um método que carrega os dados do usuário na sessão após um logon bem-sucedido.


@Controller
@SessionAttributes("user")
public class HomeController {
...
@RequestMapping(value= "/auth", method=RequestMethod.POST)
public String authHandler(@RequestParam String username, @RequestParam String password, RedirectAttributes attributes, Model model) {
User user = userService.findByNamePassword(username, password);
if (user == null) {
// Handle error
...
} else {
// Handle success
attributes.addFlashAttribute("user", user);
return "redirect:home";
}
}
...
}


Um controlador diferente lida com o recurso de redefinição de senha. Ele tenta carregar a instância User a partir da sessão, pois a classe é anotada com @SessionAttributes("user") e a usa para verificar a questão de redefinição da senha.


@Controller
@SessionAttributes("user")
public class ResetPasswordController {

@RequestMapping(value = "/resetQuestion", method = RequestMethod.POST)
public String resetQuestionHandler(@RequestParam String answerReset, SessionStatus status, User user, Model model) {

if (!user.getAnswer().equals(answerReset)) {
// Handle error
...
} else {
// Handle success
...
}
}
}


A intenção do desenvolvedor era carregar a instância user da sessão na qual ela foi armazenada durante o processo de logon. No entanto, o Spring verificará a solicitação e tentará vincular seus dados na instância do modelo user. Se a solicitação recebida contiver dados que podem ser vinculados à classe User, o Spring combinará os dados recebidos no atributo de sessão do usuário. É possível abusar desse cenário, enviando uma resposta arbitrária no parâmetro de consulta answerReset e também o mesmo valor para substituir o valor armazenado na sessão. Dessa forma, o invasor pode definir uma nova senha arbitrária para usuários aleatórios.
References
[1] Alexey Tyurin Spring MVC and Autobinding vulns.
[2] Alexey Tyurin Autobinding vulns and Spring MVC
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-001664, CCI-001941, CCI-001942
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[6] 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)
[7] 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
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API2 Broken Authentication
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M9 Improper Session Handling
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A7 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A3 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A2 Broken Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3405 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3405 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3405 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3405 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3405 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3405 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3405 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002250 CAT II, APSC-DV-002260 CAT II, APSC-DV-002270 CAT II, APSC-DV-002280 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
desc.dataflow.java.session_puzzling_spring
Abstract
Permitir o controle externo de configurações do sistema pode interromper o serviço ou fazer com que um aplicativo se comporte de maneiras inesperadas.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de manipulação de configurações ocorrem quando um invasor pode controlar valores que regem o comportamento do sistema, gerenciam recursos específicos ou afetam de alguma forma a funcionalidade do aplicativo.



Como a manipulação de configurações abrange um conjunto diversificado de funções, qualquer tentativa de ilustrá-la será inevitavelmente incompleta. Em vez de procurar um relacionamento coeso entre as funções abordadas na categoria de manipulação de configurações, dê um passo para trás e considere os tipos de valores do sistema que um invasor não deve ter permissão para controlar.

Exemplo 1: O trecho de código PHP a seguir lê um parâmetro de uma solicitação HTTP e define-o como a conexão de banco de dados.


...
taintedConnectionStr = request->get_form_field( 'dbconn_name' ).
TRY.
DATA(con) = cl_sql_connection=>get_connection( `R/3*` && taintedConnectionStr ).
...
con->close( ).
CATCH cx_sql_exception INTO FINAL(exc).
...
ENDTRY.


Neste exemplo, um invasor pode causar um erro fornecendo uma conexão de banco de dados inexistente na tabela ABAP DBCON ou pode se conectar a uma parte não autorizada do banco de dados.

Em geral, não permita que dados fornecidos pelo usuário ou de qualquer outra forma não confiáveis controlem valores confidenciais. A vantagem obtida por um invasor ao controlar esses valores nem sempre é imediatamente óbvia, mas não subestime a criatividade dele.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.abap.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Permitir o controle externo de configurações do sistema pode interromper o serviço ou fazer com que um aplicativo se comporte de maneiras inesperadas.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de manipulação de configurações ocorrem quando um invasor pode controlar valores que regem o comportamento do sistema, gerenciam recursos específicos ou afetam de alguma forma a funcionalidade do aplicativo.

Como a manipulação de configurações abrange um conjunto diversificado de funções, qualquer tentativa de ilustrá-la será inevitavelmente incompleta. Em vez de procurar um relacionamento coeso entre as funções abordadas na categoria de manipulação de configurações, de um passo para trás e considere os tipos de valores do sistema que um invasor não deve ter permissão para controlar.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Permitir o controle externo de configurações do sistema pode interromper o serviço ou fazer com que um aplicativo se comporte de maneiras inesperadas.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de manipulação de configurações ocorrem quando um invasor pode controlar valores que regem o comportamento do sistema, gerenciam recursos específicos ou afetam de alguma forma a funcionalidade do aplicativo.

Como a manipulação de configurações abrange um conjunto diversificado de funções, qualquer tentativa de ilustrá-la será inevitavelmente incompleta. Em vez de procurar um relacionamento coeso entre as funções abordadas na categoria de manipulação de configurações, de um passo para trás e considere os tipos de valores do sistema que um invasor não deve ter permissão para controlar.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código C aceita um número como um de seus parâmetros de linha de comando e o define como a ID de host da máquina atual.


...
sethostid(argv[1]);
...


Embora um processo deva ser privilegiado para invocar sethostid() com êxito, usuários sem privilégios podem ser capazes de invocar o programa. O código nesse exemplo permite que a entrada do usuário controle diretamente o valor de uma configuração do sistema. Se um invasor fornece um valor mal-intencionado para a ID de host, o invasor poderá identificar incorretamente a máquina afetada na rede ou causar outro comportamento indesejado.

Em geral, não permita que dados fornecidos pelo usuário ou de qualquer outra forma não confiáveis controlem valores confidenciais. A vantagem obtida por um invasor ao controlar esses valores nem sempre é imediatamente óbvia, mas não subestime a criatividade dele.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cpp.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Permitir o controle externo de configurações do sistema pode interromper o serviço ou fazer com que um aplicativo se comporte de maneiras inesperadas.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de manipulação de configurações ocorrem quando um invasor pode controlar valores que regem o comportamento do sistema, gerenciam recursos específicos ou afetam de alguma forma a funcionalidade do aplicativo.



Como a manipulação de configurações abrange um conjunto diversificado de funções, qualquer tentativa de ilustrá-la será inevitavelmente incompleta. Em vez de procurar um relacionamento coeso entre as funções abordadas na categoria de manipulação de configurações, de um passo para trás e considere os tipos de valores do sistema que um invasor não deve ter permissão para controlar.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte trecho de código COBOL lê valores do terminal e os utiliza para calcular as opções usadas para estabelecer o acesso a um objeto de fila.


...
ACCEPT OPT1.
ACCEPT OPT2
COMPUTE OPTS = OPT1 + OPT2.
CALL 'MQOPEN' USING HCONN, OBJECTDESC, OPTS, HOBJ, COMPOCODE REASON.
...


Nesse exemplo, um invasor pode fornecer uma opção que permite um acesso compartilhado, em vez de exclusivo, à fila.

Em geral, não permita que dados fornecidos pelo usuário ou de qualquer outra forma não confiáveis controlem valores confidenciais. A vantagem obtida por um invasor ao controlar esses valores nem sempre é imediatamente óbvia, mas não subestime a criatividade dele.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cobol.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Permitir o controle externo de configurações do sistema pode interromper o serviço ou fazer com que um aplicativo se comporte de maneiras inesperadas.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de manipulação de configurações ocorrem quando um invasor pode controlar valores que regem o comportamento do sistema, gerenciam recursos específicos ou afetam de alguma forma a funcionalidade do aplicativo.

Como a manipulação de configurações abrange um conjunto diversificado de funções, qualquer tentativa de ilustrá-la será inevitavelmente incompleta. Em vez de procurar um relacionamento coeso entre as funções abordadas na categoria de manipulação de configurações, de um passo para trás e considere os tipos de valores do sistema que um invasor não deve ter permissão para controlar.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir lê um número de um formulário da Web e o utiliza para definir o valor de tempo limite em um arquivo de inicialização.


...
<cfset code = SetProfileString(IniPath,
Section, "timeout", Form.newTimeout)>
...


Como o valor de Form.newTimeout é usado para especificar um tempo limite, um invasor pode ser capaz de preparar um ataque de negação de serviço (DoS) contra o aplicativo especificando um número suficientemente grande.

Em geral, não permita que dados fornecidos pelo usuário ou de qualquer outra forma não confiáveis controlem valores confidenciais. A vantagem obtida por um invasor ao controlar esses valores nem sempre é imediatamente óbvia, mas não subestime a criatividade dele.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cfml.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Permitir o controle externo de configurações do sistema pode interromper o serviço ou fazer com que um aplicativo se comporte de maneiras inesperadas.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de manipulação de configurações ocorrem quando um invasor pode controlar valores que regem o comportamento do sistema, gerenciam recursos específicos ou afetam de alguma forma a funcionalidade do aplicativo.



Como a manipulação de configurações abrange um conjunto diversificado de funções, qualquer tentativa de ilustrá-la será inevitavelmente incompleta. Em vez de procurar um relacionamento coeso entre as funções abordadas na categoria de manipulação de configurações, de um passo para trás e considere os tipos de valores do sistema que um invasor não deve ter permissão para controlar.

Exemplo 1: O trecho de código a seguir define uma variável de ambiente com dados controlados pelo usuário.


...
catalog := request.Form.Get("catalog")
path := request.Form.Get("path")
os.Setenv(catalog, path)
...


Neste exemplo, um invasor poderia definir qualquer variável de ambiente arbitrária e afetar a forma como outros aplicativos funcionam.

Em geral, não permita que dados fornecidos pelo usuário ou de qualquer outra forma não confiáveis controlem valores confidenciais. A vantagem obtida por um invasor ao controlar esses valores nem sempre é óbvia, mas não subestime a criatividade dele.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Permitir o controle externo de configurações do sistema pode interromper o serviço ou fazer com que um aplicativo se comporte de maneiras inesperadas.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de manipulação de configurações ocorrem quando um invasor pode controlar valores que regem o comportamento do sistema, gerenciam recursos específicos ou afetam de alguma forma a funcionalidade do aplicativo.



Como a manipulação de configurações abrange um conjunto diversificado de funções, qualquer tentativa de ilustrá-la será inevitavelmente incompleta. Em vez de procurar um relacionamento coeso entre as funções abordadas na categoria de manipulação de configurações, de um passo para trás e considere os tipos de valores do sistema que um invasor não deve ter permissão para controlar.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte trecho de código Java lê uma string de HttpServletRequest e a define como o catálogo ativo para um banco de dados Connection.


...
conn.setCatalog(request.getParamter("catalog"));
...


Neste exemplo, um invasor pode causar um erro fornecendo um nome de catálogo inexistente ou pode se conectar a uma parte não autorizada do banco de dados.

Em geral, não permita que dados fornecidos pelo usuário ou de qualquer outra forma não confiáveis controlem valores confidenciais. A vantagem obtida por um invasor ao controlar esses valores nem sempre é imediatamente óbvia, mas não subestime a criatividade dele.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Permitir o controle externo de configurações do sistema pode interromper o serviço ou fazer com que um aplicativo se comporte de maneiras inesperadas.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de manipulação de configurações ocorrem quando um invasor pode controlar valores que regem o comportamento do sistema, gerenciam recursos específicos ou afetam de alguma forma a funcionalidade do aplicativo.



Como a manipulação de configurações abrange um conjunto diversificado de funções, qualquer tentativa de ilustrá-la será inevitavelmente incompleta. Em vez de procurar um relacionamento coeso entre as funções abordadas na categoria de manipulação de configurações, de um passo para trás e considere os tipos de valores do sistema que um invasor não deve ter permissão para controlar.

Exemplo 1: Este trecho de código Node.js lê uma cadeia a partir de uma variável de solicitação http.IncomingMessage e a utiliza para definir sinalizadores adicionais de linha de comando V8.


var v8 = require('v8');
...
var flags = url.parse(request.url, true)['query']['flags'];
...
v8.setFlagsFromString(flags);
...


Neste exemplo, um invasor pode fazer com que muitos sinalizadores diferentes sejam definidos na VM, o que pode resultar em um comportamento imprevisível, incluindo o travamento do programa e uma potencial perda de dados.

Em geral, não permita que dados fornecidos pelo usuário ou de qualquer outra forma não confiáveis controlem valores confidenciais. A vantagem obtida por um invasor ao controlar esses valores nem sempre é imediatamente óbvia, mas não subestime a criatividade dele.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Permitir o controle externo de configurações do sistema pode interromper o serviço ou fazer com que um aplicativo se comporte de maneiras inesperadas.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de manipulação de configurações ocorrem quando um invasor pode controlar valores que regem o comportamento do sistema, gerenciam recursos específicos ou afetam de alguma forma a funcionalidade do aplicativo.



Como a manipulação de configurações abrange um conjunto diversificado de funções, qualquer tentativa de ilustrá-la será inevitavelmente incompleta. Em vez de procurar um relacionamento coeso entre as funções abordadas na categoria de manipulação de configurações, de um passo para trás e considere os tipos de valores do sistema que um invasor não deve ter permissão para controlar.

Exemplo 1: O trecho de código PHP a seguir lê um parâmetro de uma solicitação HTTP e define-o como o catálogo ativo de uma conexão de banco de dados.


<?php
...
$table_name=$_GET['catalog'];
$retrieved_array = pg_copy_to($db_connection, $table_name);
...
?>


Neste exemplo, um invasor pode causar um erro fornecendo um nome de catálogo inexistente ou pode se conectar a uma parte não autorizada do banco de dados.

Em geral, não permita que dados fornecidos pelo usuário ou de qualquer outra forma não confiáveis controlem valores confidenciais. A vantagem obtida por um invasor ao controlar esses valores nem sempre é imediatamente óbvia, mas não subestime a criatividade dele.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Permitir o controle externo de configurações do sistema pode interromper o serviço ou fazer com que um aplicativo se comporte de maneiras inesperadas.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de manipulação de configurações ocorrem quando um invasor pode controlar valores que regem o comportamento do sistema, gerenciam recursos específicos ou afetam de alguma forma a funcionalidade do aplicativo.



Como a manipulação de configurações abrange um conjunto diversificado de funções, qualquer tentativa de ilustrá-la será inevitavelmente incompleta. Em vez de procurar um relacionamento coeso entre as funções abordadas na categoria de manipulação de configurações, de um passo para trás e considere os tipos de valores do sistema que um invasor não deve ter permissão para controlar.

Exemplo 1: Este trecho de código define uma variável de ambiente usando dados controlados pelo usuário.


...
catalog = request.GET['catalog']
path = request.GET['path']
os.putenv(catalog, path)
...


Neste exemplo, um invasor poderia definir qualquer variável de ambiente arbitrário e afetar a forma como outros aplicativos funcionam.

Em geral, não permita que dados fornecidos pelo usuário ou de qualquer outra forma não confiáveis controlem valores confidenciais. A vantagem obtida por um invasor ao controlar esses valores nem sempre é imediatamente óbvia, mas não subestime a criatividade dele.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Permitir o controle externo de configurações do sistema pode interromper o serviço ou fazer com que um aplicativo se comporte de maneiras inesperadas.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de manipulação de configurações ocorrem quando um invasor pode controlar valores que regem o comportamento do sistema, gerenciam recursos específicos ou afetam de alguma forma a funcionalidade do aplicativo.



Como a manipulação de configurações abrange um conjunto diversificado de funções, qualquer tentativa de ilustrá-la será inevitavelmente incompleta. Em vez de procurar um relacionamento coeso entre as funções abordadas na categoria de manipulação de configurações, de um passo para trás e considere os tipos de valores do sistema que um invasor não deve ter permissão para controlar.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte trecho de código Scala lê uma string de uma Solicitação Http e a define como o catálogo ativo para um banco de dados Connection.


def connect(catalog: String) = Action { request =>
...
conn.setCatalog(catalog)
...
}


Neste exemplo, um invasor pode causar um erro fornecendo um nome de catálogo inexistente ou pode se conectar a uma parte não autorizada do banco de dados.

Em geral, não permita que dados fornecidos pelo usuário ou de qualquer outra forma não confiáveis controlem valores confidenciais.A vantagem obtida por um invasor ao controlar esses valores nem sempre é imediatamente óbvia, mas não subestime a criatividade dele.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.scala.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Permitir o controle externo de configurações do sistema pode interromper o serviço ou fazer com que um aplicativo se comporte de maneiras inesperadas.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de manipulação de configurações ocorrem quando um invasor pode controlar valores que regem o comportamento do sistema, gerenciam recursos específicos ou afetam de alguma forma a funcionalidade do aplicativo.

Como a manipulação de configurações abrange um conjunto diversificado de funções, qualquer tentativa de ilustrá-la será inevitavelmente incompleta. Em vez de procurar um relacionamento coeso entre as funções abordadas na categoria de manipulação de configurações, de um passo para trás e considere os tipos de valores do sistema que um invasor não deve ter permissão para controlar.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir configura o manipulador de logs do SQL e usa um valor controlável pelo usuário.


...
sqlite3(SQLITE_CONFIG_LOG, user_controllable);
...


Em geral, não permita que dados fornecidos pelo usuário ou de qualquer outra forma não confiáveis controlem valores confidenciais. A vantagem obtida por um invasor ao controlar esses valores nem sempre é imediatamente óbvia, mas não subestime a criatividade dele.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.setting_manipulation
Abstract
Permitir o controle externo de configurações do sistema pode interromper o serviço ou fazer com que um aplicativo se comporte de maneiras inesperadas.
Explanation
Vulnerabilidades de manipulação de configurações ocorrem quando um invasor pode controlar valores que regem o comportamento do sistema, gerenciam recursos específicos ou afetam de alguma forma a funcionalidade do aplicativo.



Como a manipulação de configurações abrange um conjunto diversificado de funções, qualquer tentativa de ilustrá-la será inevitavelmente incompleta. Em vez de procurar um relacionamento coeso entre as funções abordadas na categoria de manipulação de configurações, de um passo para trás e considere os tipos de valores do sistema que um invasor não deve ter permissão para controlar.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte trecho de código VB lê uma cadeia de caracteres de um objeto Request e define-a como o catálogo ativo de um banco de dados Connection.


...
Dim conn As ADODB.Connection
Set conn = New ADODB.Connection
Dim rsTables As ADODB.Recordset
Dim Catalog As New ADOX.Catalog
Set Catalog.ActiveConnection = conn
Catalog.Create Request.Form("catalog")
...


Neste exemplo, um invasor pode causar um erro fornecendo um nome de catálogo inexistente ou pode se conectar a uma parte não autorizada do banco de dados.

Em geral, não permita que dados fornecidos pelo usuário ou de qualquer outra forma não confiáveis controlem valores confidenciais. A vantagem obtida por um invasor ao controlar esses valores nem sempre é imediatamente óbvia, mas não subestime a criatividade dele.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.5.4 Input and Output Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.1.1 Generic Web Service Security Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.2 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.4.4 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[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 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.vb.setting_manipulation
Abstract
O aplicativo permite que um usuário defina uma lista de permissões, o que pode dar a ele a capacidade de marcar uma entrada mal-intencionada como segura.
Explanation
As estruturas geralmente têm listas de permissões para validação para proteção contra vulnerabilidades.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir permite que um usuário mal-intencionado defina a lista de permissões a ser usada pelo AngularJS para determinar os tipos de link que as imagens podem recuperar.

myModule.config(function($compileProvider){
$compileProvider.imgSrcSanitizationWhitelist(userInput);
});


Isso pode parecer bom, mas, se o usuário definir a expressão regular como /^(http(s)?|javascript):.*/, o aplicativo permitirá o uso de JavaScript embutido dentro de URLs de origem de imagem, o que pode resultar em ataques de execução de scripts entre sites.
Outras instâncias de listas de permissão podem estar impedindo todos os diferentes tipos de ataques, especialmente os ataques de injeção, como criação de script entre sites, injeção de comandos, injeção de SQL, bem como falhas de lógica de negócios.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 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 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.setting_manipulation_user_controlled_allow_list
Abstract
O aplicativo permite que um usuário defina a ação para processar uma solicitação de aprovação, o que pode levar a transações fraudulentas ou escalonamento de privilégios.
Explanation
Se os usuários tiverem permissão para controlar a ação de processamento de uma solicitação de aprovação, um usuário mal-intencionado poderá rejeitar solicitações legítimas ou aprovar solicitações fraudulentas, levando à corrupção de dados, negação de serviço ou escalonamento de privilégios.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir permite que a entrada do usuário externo controle a ação de aprovação em uma chamada ProcessWorkitemRequest.setAction().

void processRequest() {
String workItemId = ApexPages.currentPage().getParameters().get('Id');
String action = ApexPages.currentPage().getParameters().get('Action');

Approval.ProcessWorkitemRequest req = new Approval.ProcessWorkitemRequest();
req.setWorkitemId(workItemId);
req.setAction(action);

Approval.ProcessResult res = Approval.process(req);
...
}


Uma maneira de um invasor explorar esse código é enviar inicialmente uma solicitação de aprovação para modificar as funções ou permissões de acesso associadas à sua conta. Ele poderia então adulterar os parâmetros de consulta para garantir que sua solicitação fosse aprovada incorretamente, resultando potencialmente em escalonamento de privilégios não autorizados.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 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 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.apex.setting_manipulation_user_controlled_approval_action
Abstract
O aplicativo permite que um usuário defina delimitadores de expressão, que podem dar a esse usuário a capacidade de contornar proteções de execução de scripts entre sites.
Explanation
Quando você permite que os usuários definam os delimitadores usados por mecanismos de modelo, isso significa que as proteções que foram implementadas anteriormente podem ter deixado de funcionar ou ser inválidas. Na versão mais benigna, isso pode fazer com que a funcionalidade não opere conforme esperado ou pode provocar vazamento de informações, mas também pode permitir que usuários mal-intencionados contornem as proteções no mecanismo, resultando em vulnerabilidades de execução de scripts entre sites.

Exemplo 1: No código a seguir, um módulo AngularJS está configurado para usar um símbolo inicial definido a partir do hash dentro da URL.



var hash = window.location.hash;
var myStartSymbol = decodeURIComponent(hash.substring(1, hash.length));

myModule.config(function($interpolateProvider){
$interpolateProvider.startSymbol(myStartSymbol);
});


Em geral, isso é feito para permitir que vários mecanismos de modelo trabalhem em conjunto, o que por si só é extremamente perigoso [1], mas pode provocar a execução de mecanismos que talvez não sejam compatíveis com expressões AngularJS, fazendo possivelmente com que os usuários sejam capazes de contornar a validação regular e executar seus próprios códigos no navegador.
References
[1] AngularJS $interpolateProvider documentation Google
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 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 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.setting_manipulation_user_controlled_expression_delimiters
Abstract
A execução de consultas SOQL com dados de fontes não confiáveis pode permitir acesso a dados não autorizados.
Explanation
A SOQL (Salesforce Object Query Language) foi concebida para recuperar informações específicas do banco de dados de aplicativos, e esses dados não podem ser alterados com o uso de consultas SOQL.

Erros de injeção de SOQL ocorrem quando:

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


2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta SOQL, sem qualquer tipo de pré-processamento ou sanitização.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SOQL que procura contatos com um nome especificado.


...
public String inputValue {
get { return inputValue; }
set { inputValue = value; }
}
...
String queryString = 'SELECT Id FROM Contact WHERE (IsDeleted = false AND Name like \'%' + inputValue + '%\')';
result = Database.query(queryString);
...


Este código pretende executar a consulta da seguinte maneira:


SELECT Id FROM Contact WHERE (IsDeleted = false AND Name like '%inputValue%')


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se inputValue não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor inserir a string name') OR (Name like '% para inputValue, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT Id FROM Contact WHERE (IsDeleted = false AND Name like '%name') OR (Name like '%%')


A adição da condição name') OR (Name like '% faz com que a cláusula "where" use a condição LIKE '%%', o que forçará a consulta a processar a saída de todos os valores de ID possíveis, já que ela se torna logicamente equivalente à consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT Id FROM Contact WHERE ... OR (Name like '%%')


Ao contrário da maioria das interfaces de banco de dados, a SOQL na plataforma force.com não oferece suporte a várias instruções SOQL separadas por caracteres de ponto-e-vírgula, o que significa que não é possível concatenar vários comandos em uma única consulta, como é o caso com ataques comuns de SQL Injection. Observe também que o banco de dados Apex não oferece suporte a comentários e, portanto, todas as aspas simples, parênteses ou outros caracteres especiais devem ter um par.
References
[1] Salesforce Developers Technical Library Secure Coding SQL Injection
[2] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[3] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[4] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[5] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.apex.soql_injection
Abstract
A execução de consultas SOSL com dados de fontes não confiáveis pode permitir acesso a dados não autorizados.
Explanation
A SOSL (Salesforce Object Search Language) é a linguagem de pesquisa da plataforma Salesforce usada para realizar pesquisas de texto em registros. Use a SOSL para procurar campos em vários registros de objetos padrão e personalizados no Salesforce.

Erros de injeção de SOSL ocorrem quando:

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


2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta SOSL, sem qualquer tipo de pré-processamento ou sanitização.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SOSL que procura contatos com um nome especificado.


...
public String inputValue {
get { return inputValue; }
set { inputValue = value; }
}
...
String queryString = 'Name LIKE \'%' + inputValue + '%\'';
String searchString = 'Acme';
String searchQuery = 'FIND :searchString IN ALL FIELDS RETURNING Contact (Id WHERE ' + queryString + ')';
List<List<SObject>> results = Search.query(searchQuery);
...


Este código pretende executar a consulta da seguinte maneira:


String searchQuery = 'FIND :searchString IN ALL FIELDS RETURNING Contact (Id WHERE Name LIKE '%' + inputValue + '%')';


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se inputValue não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor inserir a string 1%' OR Name LIKE ' para inputValue, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


String searchQuery = 'FIND :searchString IN ALL FIELDS RETURNING Contact (Id WHERE Name LIKE '%1%' OR Name LIKE '%%')';


A adição da condição OR Name like '%%' faz com que a cláusula "where" use a condição LIKE '%%', o que forçará a consulta a processar a saída de todos os registros que contêm a frase "map", já que ela se torna logicamente equivalente à consulta muito mais simples:


FIND 'map*' IN ALL FIELDS RETURNING Contact (Id WHERE Name LIKE '%%')


Ao contrário da maioria das interfaces de banco de dados, a SOSL na plataforma force.com não oferece suporte a várias instruções SOSL separadas por caracteres de ponto-e-vírgula, o que significa que não é possível concatenar vários comandos em uma única consulta, como é o caso com ataques comuns de SQL Injection. Observe também que o banco de dados Apex não oferece suporte a comentários e, portanto, todas as aspas simples, parênteses ou outros caracteres especiais devem ter um par.
References
[1] Salesforce Developers Technical Library Secure Coding SQL Injection
[2] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[3] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[4] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[5] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.apex.sosl_injection
Abstract
Carregar recursos de definição de Bean controlados pelo usuário pode permitir que invasores executem código arbitrário no servidor, abusem da lógica do aplicativo e/ou provoquem uma negação de serviço.
Explanation
O Spring permite que os desenvolvedores carreguem as definições de Bean de vários recursos, inclusive arquivos locais e URLs remotas. Se um invasor for capaz de controlar o conteúdo do recurso de definição de Bean, ele poderá injetar definições de Bean mal-intencionadas que podem executar código arbitrário após sua inicialização.

Exemplo: O exemplo a seguir carrega um recurso de definição de Bean a partir de uma localização controlada pelo usuário:

String beans = getBeanDefinitionFromUser();
GenericApplicationContext ctx = new GenericApplicationContext();
XmlBeanDefinitionReader xmlReader = new XmlBeanDefinitionReader(ctx);
xmlReader.loadBeanDefinitions(new UrlResource(beans));
ctx.refresh();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94, CWE ID 95
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 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)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.spring_beans_injection
Abstract
O aplicativo está configurado para desativar o escape automático de HTML para tags Spring, o que pode levar a vulnerabilidades de Cross-Site Scripting.
Explanation
Desativar o escape automático para o contexto HTML em tags Spring pode tornar o aplicativo vulnerável a ataques de Cross-Site Scripting.

Exemplo 1: A seguinte configuração web.xml instrui o aplicativo a desabilitar o escape automático de HTML para tags Spring.


<web-app xmlns="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" version="3.0"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/web-app_3_0.xsd" metadata-complete="true">
...
<context-param>
<param-name>defaultHtmlEscape</param-name>
<param-value>false</param-value>
</context-param>
...
</web-app>
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 554
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.config.java.spring_misconfiguration_html_escaping_disabled
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL Injection ocorrem quando:

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

2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta SQL.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL projetada para procurar faturas pertencentes a um usuário. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o usuário corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
v_account = request->get_form_field( 'account' ).
v_reference = request->get_form_field( 'ref_key' ).

CONCATENATE `user = '` sy-uname `'` INTO cl_where.
IF v_account IS NOT INITIAL.
CONCATENATE cl_where ` AND account = ` v_account INTO cl_where SEPARATED BY SPACE.
ENDIF.
IF v_reference IS NOT INITIAL.
CONCATENATE cl_where "AND ref_key = `" v_reference "`" INTO cl_where.
ENDIF.

SELECT *
FROM invoice_items
INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE itab_items
WHERE (cl_where).
...


A consulta que esse código pretende executar é a seguinte (com a condição de que v_account e v_reference não sejam espaços em branco):


SELECT *
FROM invoice_items
INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE itab_items
WHERE user = sy-uname
AND account = <account>
AND ref_key = <reference>.


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela é uma candidata a ataques de SQL Injection. Se um invasor inserir a string "abc` OR MANDT NE `+" para v_reference e a string '1000' para v_account, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT *
FROM invoice_items
INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE itab_items
WHERE user = sy-uname
AND account = 1000
AND ref_key = `abc` OR MANDT NE `+`.


A adição da condição OR MANDT NE `+` faz com que a cláusula WHERE sempre seja avaliada como "true", pois o campo "client" nunca pode ser igual ao literal +, e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM invoice_items
INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE itab_items.


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela invoice_items, independentemente do usuário especificado.

Exemplo 2: Neste exemplo, vamos considerar o uso da API ADBC em um programa que permite que os funcionários atualizem seus endereços.


PARAMETERS: p_street TYPE string,
p_city TYPE string.

Data: v_sql TYPE string,
stmt TYPE REF TO CL_SQL_STATEMENT.

v_sql = "UPDATE EMP_TABLE SET ".

"Update employee address. Build the update statement with changed details
IF street NE p_street.
CONCATENATE v_sql "STREET = `" p_street "`".
ENDIF.
IF city NE p_city.
CONCATENATE v_sql "CITY = `" p_city "`".
ENDIF.

l_upd = stmt->execute_update( v_sql ).



Se um funcionário insatisfeito inserir uma string como "ABC` SALARY = `1000000" para o parâmetro p_street, o aplicativo permitirá que o banco de dados seja atualizado com o salário revisado!

Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.

References
[1] SAP OSS notes 1520356, 1487337, 1502272 and related notes.
[2] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[3] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[4] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[5] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[19] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[70] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.abap.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL Injection ocorrem quando:

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



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

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var username:String = String(params["username"]);
var itemName:String = String(params["itemName"]);
var query:String = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = " + username + " AND itemname = " + itemName;

stmt.sqlConnection = conn;
stmt.text = query;
stmt.execute();
...


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se itemName não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para itemName, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Exemplo 2: Esse exemplo examina os efeitos de um valor mal-intencionado diferente transmitido para a consulta construída e executada no Example 1. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" para itemName, a consulta se transformará nas duas consultas a seguir:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Muitos servidores de banco de dados, incluindo o Microsoft SQL Server 2000, permitem que várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto-e-vírgula sejam executadas de uma vez. Embora esse ataque resulte em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lote de instruções separadas por ponto-e-vírgula, em bancos de dados que permitem a execução em lote, esse tipo de ataque permite que o invasor execute comandos arbitrários direcionados ao banco de dados.

Observe o par de hifens (--) à direita, que especifica para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não deve ser executado [4]. Nesse caso, o caractere de comentário serve para remover as aspas simples à direita que sobraram da consulta modificada. Em um banco de dados no qual comentários não podem ser utilizados dessa maneira, o ataque geral ainda pode se tornar efetivo com o uso de um truque semelhante ao mostrado no Example 1. Se um invasor inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", as três instruções válidas a seguir serão criadas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL Injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL Injection, eles não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL Injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.actionscript.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL Injection ocorrem quando:

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

2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta SQL.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais owner corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
string userName = ctx.getAuthenticatedUserName();
string query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"
+ userName + "' AND itemname = '"
+ ItemName.Text + "'";
sda = new SqlDataAdapter(query, conn);
DataTable dt = new DataTable();
sda.Fill(dt);
...


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se itemName não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para itemName, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Exemplo 2: Esse exemplo examina os efeitos de um valor mal-intencionado diferente transmitido para a consulta construída e executada no Example 1. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; --" para itemName, a consulta se transformará nas duas consultas a seguir:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Muitos servidores de banco de dados, incluindo o Microsoft SQL Server 2000, permitem que várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto-e-vírgula sejam executadas de uma vez. Embora esse ataque resulte em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lote de instruções separadas por ponto-e-vírgula, em bancos de dados que permitem a execução em lote, esse tipo de ataque permite que o invasor execute comandos arbitrários direcionados ao banco de dados.

Observe o par de hifens (--) à direita, que especifica para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não deve ser executado [4]. Nesse caso, o caractere de comentário serve para remover as aspas simples à direita que sobraram da consulta modificada. Em um banco de dados no qual comentários não podem ser utilizados dessa maneira, o ataque geral ainda pode se tornar efetivo com o uso de um truque semelhante ao mostrado no Example 1. Se um invasor inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", as três instruções válidas a seguir serão criadas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL Injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL Injection, eles não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL Injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dotnet.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL Injection ocorrem quando:

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

2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta SQL.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
ctx.getAuthUserName(&userName); {
CString query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"
+ userName + "' AND itemname = '"
+ request.Lookup("item") + "'";
dbms.ExecuteSQL(query);
...
Exemplo 2:Como alternativa, um resultado semelhante pode ser obtido com o SQLite usando o seguinte código:


...
sprintf (sql, "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner='%s' AND itemname='%s'", username, request.Lookup("item"));
printf("SQL to execute is: \n\t\t %s\n", sql);
rc = sqlite3_exec(db,sql, NULL,0, &err);
...


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se itemName não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para itemName, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Exemplo 3: Esse exemplo examina os efeitos de um valor mal-intencionado diferente transmitido para a consulta construída e executada no Example 1. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; --" para itemName, a consulta se transformará nas duas consultas a seguir:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Muitos servidores de banco de dados, incluindo o Microsoft SQL Server 2000, permitem que várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto-e-vírgula sejam executadas de uma vez. Embora esse ataque resulte em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lote de instruções separadas por ponto-e-vírgula, em bancos de dados que permitem a execução em lote, esse tipo de ataque permite que o invasor execute comandos arbitrários direcionados ao banco de dados.

Observe o par de hifens (--) à direita, que especifica para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não deve ser executado [4]. Nesse caso, o caractere de comentário serve para remover as aspas simples à direita que sobraram da consulta modificada. Em um banco de dados no qual comentários não podem ser utilizados dessa maneira, o ataque geral ainda pode se tornar efetivo com o uso de um truque semelhante ao mostrado no Example 1. Se um invasor inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", as três instruções válidas a seguir serão criadas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL Injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL Injection, eles não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL Injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Parameterized CRecordset and CDatabase for SQL Server
[6] Parameterizing a Recordset Microsoft
[7] ODBC API Reference: SQLNumParams() Microsoft
[8] ODBC API Reference: SQLBindParameter() Microsoft
[9] OLE DB Reference: ICommandWithParameters Microsoft
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[17] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[18] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[19] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[20] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[24] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[25] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[32] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[33] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[34] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[35] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[43] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[44] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[45] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[46] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[47] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[48] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[49] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[50] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[69] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[70] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[71] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[72] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[73] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[74] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.cpp.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL Injection ocorrem quando:

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

2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta SQL.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir cria e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL projetada para pesquisar itens que correspondem a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário é igual ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
ACCEPT USER.
ACCEPT ITM.
MOVE "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '" TO QUERY1.
MOVE "' AND itemname = '" TO QUERY2.
MOVE "'" TO QUERY3.

STRING
QUERY1, USER, QUERY2, ITM, QUERY3 DELIMITED BY SIZE
INTO QUERY
END-STRING.

EXEC SQL
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE :QUERY
END-EXEC.
...


A consulta que esse código pretende executar é a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se itemName não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para itm, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula WHERE seja sempre avaliada como verdadeira, portanto a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta, muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Exemplo 2: Neste exemplo, vamos considerar os efeitos de um valor mal-intencionado diferente passado para a consulta criada e executada no Example 1. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" para itemName, a consulta se transformará nas duas consultas a seguir:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Muitos servidores de banco de dados, incluindo o Microsoft SQL Server 2000, permitem que várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto-e-vírgula sejam executadas de uma vez. Embora essa cadeia de caracteres de ataque resultasse em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lotes de declarações separadas por ponto e vírgula, em bancos de dados com suporte esse tipo de ataque permitirá a execução de comandos arbitrários no banco de dados.

Observe o par de hífens (-) à direita; eles indicam para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não executado [4]. Nesse caso, os comentários são usados para remover o apóstrofo à direita que resta da consulta modificada. Em um banco de dados no qual comentários não podem ser utilizados dessa maneira, o ataque geral ainda pode se tornar efetivo com o uso de um truque semelhante ao mostrado no Example 1. Se um invasor inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", as três instruções válidas a seguir serão criadas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL Injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL Injection, eles não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL Injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.cobol.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL Injection ocorrem quando:

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

2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta SQL.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
<cfquery name="matchingItems" datasource="cfsnippets">
SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner='#Form.userName#'
AND itemId=#Form.ID#
</cfquery>
...


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemId = <ID>;


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se Form.ID não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para Form.ID, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemId = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Exemplo 2: Esse exemplo examina os efeitos de um valor mal-intencionado diferente transmitido para a consulta construída e executada no Example 1. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário hacker inserir a string "hacker'); DELETE FROM items; --" para Form.ID, a consulta se transformará nas duas consultas a seguir:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'hacker'
AND itemId = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Muitos servidores de banco de dados, incluindo o Microsoft SQL Server 2000, permitem que várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto-e-vírgula sejam executadas de uma vez. Embora esse ataque resulte em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lote de instruções separadas por ponto-e-vírgula, em bancos de dados que permitem a execução em lote, esse tipo de ataque permite que o invasor execute comandos arbitrários direcionados ao banco de dados.

Observe o par de hifens (--) à direita, que especifica para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não deve ser executado [4]. Nesse caso, o caractere de comentário serve para remover as aspas simples à direita que sobraram da consulta modificada. Em um banco de dados no qual comentários não podem ser utilizados dessa maneira, o ataque geral ainda pode se tornar efetivo com o uso de um truque semelhante ao mostrado no Example 1. Se um invasor inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", as três instruções válidas a seguir serão criadas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'hacker'
AND itemId = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL Injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL Injection, eles não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL Injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.cfml.sql_injection
Abstract
Usar o Java J2EE PersistenceAPI para executar uma instrução SQL dinâmica construída com entrada proveniente de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL injection ocorrem quando:

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



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

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
final server = await HttpServer.bind('localhost', 18081);
server.listen((request) async {
final headers = request.headers;
final userName = headers.value('userName');
final itemName = headers.value('itemName');
final query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"
+ userName! + "' AND itemname = '"
+ itemName! + "'";
db.query(query);
}
...


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se itemName não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a cadeia de caracteres "name' OR 'a'='a" para itemName, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta só deve retornar itens pertencentes ao usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Exemplo 2: Esse exemplo examina os efeitos de um valor mal-intencionado diferente transmitido para a consulta construída e executada no Example 1. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a cadeia de caracteres "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" para itemName, a consulta se transformará nas duas seguintes consultas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Muitos servidores de banco de dados, incluindo o Microsoft SQL Server 2000, permitem que várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto-e-vírgula sejam executadas de uma vez. Embora essa cadeia de caracteres de ataque resulte em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lote de instruções separadas por ponto e vírgula, em bancos de dados que permitem a execução em lote, esse tipo de ataque permite que o invasor execute comandos arbitrários no banco de dados.

Observe o par de hifens (--) à direita, que especifica para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não deve ser executado [4]. Nesse caso, o caractere de comentário serve para remover as aspas simples à direita que sobraram da consulta modificada. Em um banco de dados no qual comentários não podem ser utilizados dessa maneira, o ataque geral ainda pode se tornar efetivo com o uso de um truque semelhante ao mostrado no Example 1. Se um invasor inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", as três instruções válidas a seguir serão criadas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de SQL injection é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e, ou aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissão de valores seguros, ou identificar e escapar uma lista de valores possivelmente mal-intencionados. Verificar uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de negação é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de SQL injection. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Direcionar campos que não estão entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL injection, não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir alguns tipos de explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dart.sql_injection
Abstract
A criação de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com entrada proveniente de uma fonte não confiável permite que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL injection ocorrem quando:

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

2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta SQL.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
rawQuery := request.URL.Query()
username := rawQuery.Get("userName")
itemName := rawQuery.Get("itemName")
query := "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = " + username + " AND itemname = " + itemName + ";"

db.Exec(query)
...


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


No entanto, como o código cria dinamicamente a consulta concatenando uma cadeia de caracteres de consulta base constante e uma cadeia de caracteres de entrada do usuário, a consulta só se comportará corretamente se itemName não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a cadeia de caracteres "name' OR 'a'='a" para itemName, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta só deve retornar itens pertencentes ao usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Exemplo 2: Esse exemplo examina os efeitos de um valor mal-intencionado diferente transmitido para a consulta construída e executada no Example 1. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a cadeia de caracteres "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" para itemName, a consulta se transformará nas duas seguintes consultas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Muitos servidores de banco de dados, inclusive o Microsoft SQL Server 2000, permitem a execução simultânea de várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto e vírgula. Embora essa cadeia de caracteres de ataque resulte em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lote de instruções separadas por ponto e vírgula, em bancos de dados que permitem a execução em lote, esse tipo de ataque permite que o invasor execute comandos arbitrários no banco de dados.

Observe o par de hifens à direita (-), que especifica para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não deve ser executado. [4] Nesse caso, o caractere de comentário serve para remover as aspas simples à direita que sobraram da consulta modificada. Em um banco de dados no qual comentários não podem ser utilizados dessa maneira, o ataque geral ainda pode se tornar efetivo com o uso de um truque semelhante ao mostrado no Example 1. Se um invasor inserir a cadeia de caracteres "name'; DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", as três seguintes instruções válidas serão criadas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


Uma abordagem tradicional para impedir ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissões com valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de bloqueios é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Direcionar campos que não estão entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada de consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não protege seu aplicativo contra ataques de SQL injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL injection, não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Novamente, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não protegem seu aplicativo contra ataques de SQL injection.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.golang.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL Injection ocorrem quando:

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



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

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
String userName = ctx.getAuthenticatedUserName();
String itemName = request.getParameter("itemName");
String query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"
+ userName + "' AND itemname = '"
+ itemName + "'";
ResultSet rs = stmt.execute(query);
...


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se itemName não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para itemName, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Exemplo 2: Esse exemplo examina os efeitos de um valor mal-intencionado diferente transmitido para a consulta construída e executada no Example 1. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" para itemName, a consulta se transformará nas duas consultas a seguir:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Muitos servidores de banco de dados, incluindo o Microsoft SQL Server 2000, permitem que várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto-e-vírgula sejam executadas de uma vez. Embora esse ataque resulte em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lote de instruções separadas por ponto-e-vírgula, em bancos de dados que permitem a execução em lote, esse tipo de ataque permite que o invasor execute comandos arbitrários direcionados ao banco de dados.

Observe o par de hifens (--) à direita, que especifica para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não deve ser executado [4]. Nesse caso, o caractere de comentário serve para remover as aspas simples à direita que sobraram da consulta modificada. Em um banco de dados no qual comentários não podem ser utilizados dessa maneira, o ataque geral ainda pode se tornar efetivo com o uso de um truque semelhante ao mostrado no Example 1. Se um invasor inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", as três instruções válidas a seguir serão criadas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


Algumas pessoas acham que, no mundo móvel, vulnerabilidades clássicas de aplicativos Web, como a SQL Injection, não fazem sentido -- por que um usuário atacaria ele próprio? No entanto, lembre-se de que a essência das plataformas móveis são aplicativos que são baixados de várias fontes e executados lado a lado no mesmo dispositivo. A probabilidade de execução de um malware junto com um aplicativo de banco é alta, o que exige a expansão da superfície de ataque de aplicativos móveis de forma a incluir comunicações entre processos.

Exemplo 3: O código a seguir adapta o Example 1 à plataforma Android.


...
PasswordAuthentication pa = authenticator.getPasswordAuthentication();
String userName = pa.getUserName();
String itemName = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("itemName");
String query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"
+ userName + "' AND itemname = '"
+ itemName + "'";
SQLiteDatabase db = this.openOrCreateDatabase("DB", MODE_PRIVATE, null);
Cursor c = db.rawQuery(query, null);
...


Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL Injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL Injection, eles não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL Injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] IDS00-J. Prevent SQL Injection CERT
[6] INJECT-2: Avoid dynamic SQL Oracle
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[20] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[22] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[32] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[43] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[44] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[47] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[69] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[70] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[71] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.java.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL Injection ocorrem quando:

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



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

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
var username = document.form.username.value;
var itemName = document.form.itemName.value;
var query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = " + username + " AND itemname = " + itemName + ";";
db.transaction(function (tx) {
tx.executeSql(query);
}
)
...


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se itemName não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para itemName, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Exemplo 2: Esse exemplo examina os efeitos de um valor mal-intencionado diferente transmitido para a consulta construída e executada no Example 1. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" para itemName, a consulta se transformará nas duas consultas a seguir:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Muitos servidores de banco de dados, incluindo o Microsoft SQL Server 2000, permitem que várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto-e-vírgula sejam executadas de uma vez. Embora esse ataque resulte em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lote de instruções separadas por ponto-e-vírgula, em bancos de dados que permitem a execução em lote, esse tipo de ataque permite que o invasor execute comandos arbitrários direcionados ao banco de dados.

Observe o par de hifens (--) à direita, que especifica para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não deve ser executado [4]. Nesse caso, o caractere de comentário serve para remover as aspas simples à direita que sobraram da consulta modificada. Em um banco de dados no qual comentários não podem ser utilizados dessa maneira, o ataque geral ainda pode se tornar efetivo com o uso de um truque semelhante ao mostrado no Example 1. Se um invasor inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", as três instruções válidas a seguir serão criadas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL Injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL Injection, eles não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL Injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.javascript.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL Injection ocorrem quando:

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



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

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
$userName = $_SESSION['userName'];
$itemName = $_POST['itemName'];
$query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '$userName' AND itemname = '$itemName';";
$result = mysql_query($query);
...


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente concatenando uma cadeia de caracteres de consulta constante e uma cadeia de caracteres de entrada do usuário, a consulta só se comportará corretamente se itemName não tiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para itemName, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Exemplo 2: Esse exemplo examina os efeitos de um valor mal-intencionado diferente transmitido para a consulta construída e executada no Example 1. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" para itemName, a consulta se transformará nas duas consultas a seguir:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Muitos servidores de banco de dados, incluindo o Microsoft SQL Server 2000, permitem que várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto-e-vírgula sejam executadas de uma vez. Embora esse ataque resulte em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lote de instruções separadas por ponto-e-vírgula, em bancos de dados que permitem a execução em lote, esse tipo de ataque permite que o invasor execute comandos arbitrários direcionados ao banco de dados.

Observe o par de hifens (--) à direita, que especifica para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não deve ser executado [4]. Nesse caso, o caractere de comentário serve para remover as aspas simples à direita que sobraram da consulta modificada. Em um banco de dados no qual comentários não podem ser utilizados dessa maneira, o ataque geral ainda pode se tornar efetivo com o uso de um truque semelhante ao mostrado no Example 1. Se um invasor inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", as três instruções válidas a seguir serão criadas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL Injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL Injection, eles não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL Injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.php.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL Injection ocorrem quando:

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

2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta SQL.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir cria e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL projetada para pesquisar itens que correspondem a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário é igual ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


procedure get_item (
itm_cv IN OUT ItmCurTyp,
usr in varchar2,
itm in varchar2)
is
open itm_cv for ' SELECT * FROM items WHERE ' ||
'owner = '''|| usr || '''' ||
' AND itemname = ''' || itm || '''';
end get_item;


A consulta que esse código pretende executar é a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se itemName não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para itm, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula WHERE seja sempre avaliada como verdadeira, portanto a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta, muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Exemplo 2: Neste exemplo, vamos considerar os efeitos de um valor mal-intencionado diferente passado para a consulta criada e executada no Example 1. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" para itemName, a consulta se transformará nas duas consultas a seguir:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Muitos servidores de banco de dados, incluindo o Microsoft SQL Server 2000, permitem que várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto-e-vírgula sejam executadas de uma vez. Embora essa cadeia de caracteres de ataque resultasse em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lotes de declarações separadas por ponto e vírgula, em bancos de dados com suporte esse tipo de ataque permitirá a execução de comandos arbitrários no banco de dados.

Observe o par de hífens (-) à direita; eles indicam para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não executado [4]. Nesse caso, os comentários são usados para remover o apóstrofo à direita que resta da consulta modificada. Em um banco de dados no qual comentários não podem ser utilizados dessa maneira, o ataque geral ainda pode se tornar efetivo com o uso de um truque semelhante ao mostrado no Example 1. Se um invasor inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", as três instruções válidas a seguir serão criadas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL Injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Como essa série de exemplos mostrou, os procedimentos armazenados podem ser tão vulneráveis quanto outros tipos de código. Os procedimentos armazenados podem ajudar a prevenir certos tipos de ataques, mas eles não vão fazer com que seu aplicativo esteja intrinsecamente seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] David Litchfield Lateral SQL Injection: A New Class of Vulnerability in Oracle
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[19] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[70] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.sql.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL Injection ocorrem quando:

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



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

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
userName = req.field('userName')
itemName = req.field('itemName')
query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = ' " + userName +" ' AND itemname = ' " + itemName +"';"
cursor.execute(query)
result = cursor.fetchall()
...


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente concatenando uma cadeia de caracteres de consulta constante e uma cadeia de caracteres de entrada do usuário, a consulta só se comportará corretamente se itemName não tiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para itemName, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Exemplo 2: Esse exemplo examina os efeitos de um valor mal-intencionado diferente transmitido para a consulta construída e executada no Example 1. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" para itemName, a consulta se transformará nas duas consultas a seguir:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Muitos servidores de banco de dados, incluindo o Microsoft SQL Server 2000, permitem que várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto-e-vírgula sejam executadas de uma vez. Embora esse ataque resulte em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lote de instruções separadas por ponto-e-vírgula, em bancos de dados que permitem a execução em lote, esse tipo de ataque permite que o invasor execute comandos arbitrários direcionados ao banco de dados.

Observe o par de hifens (--) à direita, que especifica para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não deve ser executado [4]. Nesse caso, o caractere de comentário serve para remover as aspas simples à direita que sobraram da consulta modificada. Em um banco de dados no qual comentários não podem ser utilizados dessa maneira, o ataque geral ainda pode se tornar efetivo com o uso de um truque semelhante ao mostrado no Example 1. Se um invasor inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", as três instruções válidas a seguir serão criadas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL Injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL Injection, eles não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL Injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.python.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL Injection ocorrem quando:

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

Nesse caso, o Fortify Static Code Analyzer não conseguiu determinar se a fonte dos dados é confiável.

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

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
userName = getAuthenticatedUserName()
itemName = params[:itemName]
sqlQuery = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '#{userName}' AND itemname = '#{itemName}'"
rs = conn.query(sqlQuery)
...


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se itemName não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para itemName, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Devido ao fato de que a Ruby não é digitada estaticamente também permite outros pontos de injeção em consultas SQL, que podem não estar disponíveis em linguagens de digitação estática.
Exemplo 2: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
id = params[:id]
itemName = Mysql.escape_string(params[:itemName])
sqlQuery = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE id = #{userName} AND itemname = '#{itemName}'"
rs = conn.query(sqlQuery)
...


Nesse caso, a consulta SQL esperada a ser executada é:


SELECT * FROM items WHERE id=<id> AND itemname = <itemName>;

Dessa vez você pode ver que nos protegemos contra um invasor ao especificar uma única citação dentro deitemName e aparentemente isso impediu a vulnerabilidade contra a SQL Injection. No entanto, como a Ruby não é uma linguagem de digitação estática, mesmo que nós esperemos que id seja um número inteiro de algum tipo uma vez que ele é atribuído a partir da entrada do usuário, ele não será necessariamente um número. Se um invasor puder, em vez disso, alterar o valor de id para 1 OR id!=1--, uma vez que não há nenhuma verificação de que id é de fato numérico, a consulta SQL agora se tornará:


SELECT * FROM items WHERE id=1 OR id!=1-- AND itemname = 'anyValue';


Observe o par de hifens (--) à direita, que especifica para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não deve ser executado [4]. Portanto, isso executará apenas uma consulta SQL que consiste em:


SELECT * FROM items WHERE id=1 OR id!=1;


Agora estamos apenas selecionando tudo naquela tabela, mesmo se o valor de id for igual a 1 ou não, o que naturalmente, equivale a tudo nessa tabela.

Muitos servidores de banco de dados permitem que várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto e vírgula sejam executadas ao mesmo tempo. Embora esse ataque resulte em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lote de instruções separadas por ponto-e-vírgula, em bancos de dados que permitem a execução em lote, esse tipo de ataque permite que o invasor execute comandos arbitrários direcionados ao banco de dados.

Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL Injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL Injection, eles não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL Injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.ruby.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL injection ocorrem quando:

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



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

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura usuários correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário corresponde ao nome do usuário fornecido como um parâmetro de caminho.


def doSQLQuery(value:String) = Action.async { implicit request =>
val result: Future[Seq[User]] = db.run {
sql"select * from users where name = '#$value'".as[User]
}
...
}


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM users
WHERE name = <userName>


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se userName não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para userName, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM users
WHERE name = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM users;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore a exigência de que a consulta deva retornar apenas os usuários pertencentes ao usuário especificado. Agora ela retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela users, independentemente do usuário especificado.

Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL injection, eles não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL injection.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] IDS00-J. Prevent SQL Injection CERT
[6] INJECT-2: Avoid dynamic SQL Oracle
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[20] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[22] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[32] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[43] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[44] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[47] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[69] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[70] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[71] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.scala.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL injection ocorrem quando:

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

2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta SQL.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais owner corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
let queryStatementString = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner='\(username)' AND itemname='\(item)'"
var queryStatement: OpaquePointer? = nil
if sqlite3_prepare_v2(db, queryStatementString, -1, &queryStatement, nil) == SQLITE_OK {
if sqlite3_step(queryStatement) == SQLITE_ROW {
...
}
}
...


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = '<userName>'
AND itemname = '<itemName>'


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se itemName não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para itemName, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Exemplo 3: Esse exemplo examina os efeitos de um valor mal-intencionado diferente transmitido para a consulta construída e executada no Example 1. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; --" para itemName, a consulta se transformará nas duas consultas a seguir:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Muitos servidores de banco de dados, incluindo o Microsoft SQL Server 2000, permitem que várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto-e-vírgula sejam executadas de uma vez. Embora esse ataque resulte em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lote de instruções separadas por ponto-e-vírgula, em bancos de dados que permitem a execução em lote, esse tipo de ataque permite que o invasor execute comandos arbitrários direcionados ao banco de dados.

Observe o par de hifens (--) à direita, que especifica para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não deve ser executado [4]. Nesse caso, o caractere de comentário serve para remover as aspas simples à direita que sobraram da consulta modificada. Em um banco de dados no qual comentários não podem ser utilizados dessa maneira, o ataque geral ainda pode se tornar efetivo com o uso de um truque semelhante ao mostrado no Example 1. Se um invasor inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", as três instruções válidas a seguir serão criadas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Voltar-se para campos que não estão entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL Injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL Injection, eles não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL Injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de injeção de SQL.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Parameterized CRecordset and CDatabase for SQL Server
[6] Parameterizing a Recordset Microsoft
[7] ODBC API Reference: SQLNumParams() Microsoft
[8] ODBC API Reference: SQLBindParameter() Microsoft
[9] OLE DB Reference: ICommandWithParameters Microsoft
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[17] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[18] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[19] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[20] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[24] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[25] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[32] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[33] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[34] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[35] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[43] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[44] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[45] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[46] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[47] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[48] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[49] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[50] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[69] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[70] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[71] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[72] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[73] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[74] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.swift.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução SQL dinâmica com a entrada de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL Injection ocorrem quando:

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



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

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta SQL que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais o proprietário corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
username = Session("username")
itemName = Request.Form("itemName")
strSQL = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"& userName &"' AND itemname = '" & itemName &"'"
objRecordSet.Open strSQL, strConnect, adOpenDynamic, adLockOptimistic, adCmdText
...


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se itemName não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para itemName, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Exemplo 2: Esse exemplo examina os efeitos de um valor mal-intencionado diferente transmitido para a consulta construída e executada no Example 1. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name'; DELETE FROM items; --" para itemName, a consulta se transformará nas duas consultas a seguir:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

--'


Muitos servidores de banco de dados, incluindo o Microsoft SQL Server 2000, permitem que várias instruções SQL separadas por ponto-e-vírgula sejam executadas de uma vez. Embora esse ataque resulte em um erro no Oracle e em outros servidores de banco de dados que não permitem a execução em lote de instruções separadas por ponto-e-vírgula, em bancos de dados que permitem a execução em lote, esse tipo de ataque permite que o invasor execute comandos arbitrários direcionados ao banco de dados.

Observe o par de hifens (--) à direita, que especifica para a maioria dos servidores de banco de dados que o restante da instrução deve ser tratado como um comentário e não deve ser executado [4]. Nesse caso, o caractere de comentário serve para remover as aspas simples à direita que sobraram da consulta modificada. Em um banco de dados no qual comentários não podem ser utilizados dessa maneira, o ataque geral ainda pode se tornar efetivo com o uso de um truque semelhante ao mostrado no Example 1. Se um invasor inserir a string "name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a", as três instruções válidas a seguir serão criadas:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name';

DELETE FROM items;

SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a';


Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de SQL é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissões de valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista de valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções SQL parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de permissões é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas SQL pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de SQL Injection é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de SQL Injection, eles não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL Injection limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[69] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.vb.sql_injection
Abstract
A construção de uma instrução Castle ActiveRecord dinâmica com a entrada proveniente de uma fonte não confiável pode permitir que um invasor modifique o significado da instrução ou execute comandos SQL arbitrários.
Explanation
Erros de SQL Injection relacionados ao Castle ActiveRecord ocorrem quando:

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

2. Os dados são usados para construir dinamicamente uma consulta.
Exemplo 1: O código a seguir constrói e executa dinamicamente uma consulta Castle ActiveRecord que procura itens correspondentes a um nome especificado. A consulta restringe os itens exibidos àqueles nos quais owner corresponde ao nome do usuário autenticado no momento.


...
string userName = ctx.getAuthenticatedUserName();
string queryString = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '"
+ userName + "' AND itemname = '"
+ ItemName.Text + "'";

SimpleQuery<Item> queryObject = new SimpleQuery(queryString);
Item[] items = (Item[])queryObject.Execute(query);

...


A consulta pretende executar o seguinte código:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = <userName>
AND itemname = <itemName>;


No entanto, como a consulta é construída dinamicamente por meio da concatenação de uma string de consulta base constante e de uma string de entrada do usuário, ela apenas se comportará corretamente se itemName não contiver um caractere de aspas simples. Se um invasor com o nome de usuário wiley inserir a string "name' OR 'a'='a" para itemName, a consulta se tornará a seguinte:


SELECT * FROM items
WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';


A adição da condição OR 'a'='a' faz com que a cláusula "where" sempre seja avaliada como "true" e, portanto, a consulta torna-se logicamente equivalente à seguinte consulta muito mais simples:


SELECT * FROM items;


Essa simplificação da consulta permite que o invasor ignore o requisito de que a consulta deva retornar somente itens de propriedade do usuário autenticado. A consulta agora retorna todas as entradas armazenadas na tabela items, independentemente do proprietário especificado.

Uma abordagem tradicional para evitar ataques de injeção de Castle ActiveRecord é tratá-los como um problema de validação de entrada e aceitar apenas caracteres de uma lista de permissões com valores seguros, ou identificar e fazer o escape em uma lista com valores potencialmente mal-intencionados (lista de bloqueios). O confronto com uma lista de permissões pode ser um meio muito eficaz de impor regras de validação de entrada rigorosas, mas instruções Castle ActiveRecord parametrizadas exigem menos manutenção e podem oferecer mais garantias no que diz respeito à segurança. Como é quase sempre o caso, a implementação de uma lista de bloqueios é repleta de brechas que a tornam ineficaz na prevenção de ataques de injeção de SQL Castle ActiveRecord. Por exemplo, os invasores podem:

- Intencionar campos que não estejam entre aspas
- Encontrar maneiras de contornar a necessidade de certos metacaracteres escapados
- Usar procedimentos armazenados para ocultar os metacaracteres injetados

O escape manual de caracteres na entrada para consultas Castle ActiveRecord pode ajudar, mas não tornará seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de SQL Injection Castle ActiveRecord.

Outra solução comumente proposta para lidar com ataques de injeção de Castle ActiveRecord é usar procedimentos armazenados. Embora os procedimentos armazenados evitem alguns tipos de ataques de injeção de Castle ActiveRecord, eles não conseguem oferecer proteção contra muitos outros. Em geral, eles ajudam a evitar ataques de SQL Injection Castle ActiveRecord limitando os tipos de instruções que podem ser transmitidos a seus parâmetros. No entanto, existem muitas maneiras de contornar as limitações e muitas instruções interessantes que ainda podem ser transmitidas para procedimentos armazenados. Mais uma vez, os procedimentos armazenados podem impedir algumas explorações, mas não tornarão seu aplicativo seguro contra ataques de injeção de Castle ActiveRecord.
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dotnet.sql_injection_castleActiveRecord