界: Security Features
软件安全不是安全软件。此处我们关注的主题包括身份验证、Access Control、机密性、加密和权限管理。
Insecure Randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能够生成可预测值的函数作为随机数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
这段代码使用
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
FORM GenerateReceiptURL CHANGING baseUrl TYPE string.
DATA: r TYPE REF TO cl_abap_random,
var1 TYPE i,
var2 TYPE i,
var3 TYPE n.
GET TIME.
var1 = sy-uzeit.
r = cl_abap_random=>create( seed = var1 ).
r->int31( RECEIVING value = var2 ).
var3 = var2.
CONCATENATE baseUrl var3 ".html" INTO baseUrl.
ENDFORM.
这段代码使用
CL_ABAP_RANDOM->INT31
函数为它生成的收据页面生成“唯一”的标识符。由于 CL_ABAP_RANDOM
是统计学的 PRNG,攻击者很容易猜到其生成的字符串。尽管收据系统的底层设计并不完善,但若使用不会生成可预测收据标识符的随机数生成器(如密码学的 PRNG),就会更安全些。References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.semantic.abap.insecure_randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能够生成可预测值的函数作为随机数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
这段代码使用
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
string GenerateReceiptURL(string baseUrl) {
Random Gen = new Random();
return (baseUrl + Gen.Next().toString() + ".html");
}
这段代码使用
Random.Next()
函数为它生成的收据页面生成“唯一”的标识符。由于 Random.Next()
是统计学的 PRNG,攻击者很容易猜到其生成的字符串。尽管收据系统的底层设计并不完善,但若使用不会生成可预测收据标识符的随机数生成器(如密码学的 PRNG),就会更安全些。References
[1] RandomNumberGenerator Class Microsoft
[2] System.Security.Cryptography Namespace Microsoft
[3] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.semantic.dotnet.insecure_randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能产生可预测数值的函数作为随机数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它就很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则可能会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
这段代码使用
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它就很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则可能会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
char* CreateReceiptURL() {
int num;
time_t t1;
char *URL = (char*) malloc(MAX_URL);
if (URL) {
(void) time(&t1);
srand48((long) t1); /* use time to set seed */
sprintf(URL, "%s%d%s", "http://test.com/", lrand48(), ".html");
}
return URL;
}
这段代码使用
lrand48()
函数为它生成的收据页面生成“唯一”的标识符。由于 lrand48()
是统计学的 PRNG,攻击者很容易猜到其生成的字符串。尽管收据系统的底层设计并不完善,但若使用不会生成可预测收据标识符的随机数生成器,就会更安全些。References
[1] B. Schneier Yarrow: A secure pseudorandom number generator
[2] CryptLib
[3] Crypto++
[4] BeeCrypt
[5] OpenSSL
[6] CryptoAPI: CryptGenRandom() Microsoft
[7] RtlGenRandom() Microsoft
[8] .NET System.Security.Cryptography: Random Number Generation Microsoft
[9] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[10] Elaine Barker and John Kelsey NIST Special Publication 800-90A: Recommendation for Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators NIST
[11] Elaine Barker and John Kelsey NIST DRAFT Special Publication 800-90B: Recommendation for the Entropy Sources Used for Random Bit Generation NIST
[12] Elaine Barker and John Kelsey DRAFT NIST Special Publication 800-90C: Recommendation for Random Bit Generator (RBG) Constructions NIST
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.semantic.cpp.insecure_randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能够生成可预测值的函数作为随机数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
这段代码使用
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
<cfoutput>
Receipt: #baseUrl##Rand()#.cfm
</cfoutput>
这段代码使用
Rand()
函数为它生成的收据页面生成“唯一”的标识符。由于 Rand()
是统计学的 PRNG,攻击者很容易猜到其生成的字符串。尽管收据系统的底层设计并不完善,但若使用不会生成可预测收据标识符的随机数生成器(如密码学的 PRNG),就会更安全些。References
[1] ColdFusion Java CFX Reference Adobe
[2] Java Cryptography Architecture Oracle
[3] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.semantic.cfml.insecure_randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能够生成可预测值的函数作为随机性数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
计算机是一种具有确定性的机器,因此无法产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性。但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:以下代码使用统计学的 PRNG 来创建 RSA 密钥。
该代码使用
计算机是一种具有确定性的机器,因此无法产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性。但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:以下代码使用统计学的 PRNG 来创建 RSA 密钥。
import "math/rand"
...
var mathRand = rand.New(rand.NewSource(1))
rsa.GenerateKey(mathRand, 2048)
该代码使用
rand.New()
函数生成 RSA 密钥的随机性。由于 rand.New()
是统计学的 PRNG,攻击者很容易猜到其生成的值。References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.semantic.golang.insecure_randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能够生成可预测值的函数作为随机数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
这段代码使用
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
String GenerateReceiptURL(String baseUrl) {
Random ranGen = new Random();
ranGen.setSeed((new Date()).getTime());
return (baseUrl + ranGen.nextInt(400000000) + ".html");
}
这段代码使用
Random.nextInt()
函数为它生成的收据页面生成“唯一”的标识符。由于 Random.nextInt()
是统计学的 PRNG,攻击者很容易猜到其生成的字符串。尽管收据系统的底层设计并不完善,但若使用不会生成可预测收据标识符的随机数生成器(如密码学的 PRNG),就会更安全些。References
[1] Java Cryptography Architecture Oracle
[2] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[3] MSC02-J. Generate strong random numbers CERT
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.semantic.java.insecure_randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能够生成可预测值的函数作为随机数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
这段代码使用
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
function genReceiptURL (baseURL){
var randNum = Math.random();
var receiptURL = baseURL + randNum + ".html";
return receiptURL;
}
这段代码使用
Math.random()
函数为它生成的收据页面生成“唯一”的标识符。由于 Math.random()
是统计学的 PRNG,攻击者很容易猜到其生成的字符串。尽管收据系统的底层设计并不完善,但若使用不会生成可预测收据标识符的随机数生成器(如密码学的 PRNG),就会更安全些。References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Crypto | Node.js documentation The OpenJS Foundation and Node.js contributors
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.structural.javascript.insecure_randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能够生成可预测值的函数作为随机性数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
计算机是一种具有确定性的机器,因此无法产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
这段代码使用
计算机是一种具有确定性的机器,因此无法产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
fun GenerateReceiptURL(baseUrl: String): String {
val ranGen = Random(Date().getTime())
return baseUrl + ranGen.nextInt(400000000).toString() + ".html"
}
这段代码使用
Random.nextInt()
函数为它所生成的收据页面生成独特的标识符。由于 Random.nextInt()
是统计学的 PRNG,攻击者很容易猜到其生成的字符串。尽管收据系统的底层设计并不完善,但若使用不会生成可预测收据标识符的随机数生成器(如密码学的 PRNG),就会更安全些。References
[1] Java Cryptography Architecture Oracle
[2] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[3] MSC02-J. Generate strong random numbers CERT
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.semantic.kotlin.insecure_randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能够生成可预测值的函数作为随机数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
这段代码使用
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
function genReceiptURL($baseURL) {
$randNum = rand();
$receiptURL = $baseURL . $randNum . ".html";
return $receiptURL;
}
这段代码使用
rand()
函数为它生成的收据页面生成“唯一”的标识符。由于 rand()
是统计学的 PRNG,攻击者很容易猜到其生成的字符串。尽管收据系统的底层设计并不完善,但若使用不会生成可预测收据标识符的随机数生成器(如密码学的 PRNG),就会更安全些。References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.semantic.php.insecure_randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能产生可预测数值的函数作为随机数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它就很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则可能会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
这段代码使用
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它就很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则可能会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
CREATE or REPLACE FUNCTION CREATE_RECEIPT_URL
RETURN VARCHAR2
AS
rnum VARCHAR2(48);
time TIMESTAMP;
url VARCHAR2(MAX_URL)
BEGIN
time := SYSTIMESTAMP;
DBMS_RANDOM.SEED(time);
rnum := DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('x', 48);
url := 'http://test.com/' || rnum || '.html';
RETURN url;
END
这段代码使用
DBMS_RANDOM.SEED()
函数为它生成的收据页面生成“唯一”的标识符。由于 DBMS_RANDOM.SEED()
是统计学的 PRNG,攻击者很容易猜到其生成的字符串。尽管收据系统的底层设计并不完善,但若使用不会生成可预测收据标识符的随机数生成器,就会更安全些。References
[1] Oracle Database Security Guide
[2] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.semantic.sql.insecure_randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能够生成可预测值的函数作为随机数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
这段代码使用
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
def genReceiptURL(self,baseURL):
randNum = random.random()
receiptURL = baseURL + randNum + ".html"
return receiptURL
这段代码使用
rand()
函数为它生成的收据页面生成“唯一”的标识符。由于 rand()
是统计学的 PRNG,攻击者很容易猜到其生成的字符串。尽管收据系统的底层设计并不完善,但若使用不会生成可预测收据标识符的随机数生成器(如密码学的 PRNG),就会更安全些。References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.semantic.python.insecure_randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能够生成可预测值的函数作为随机数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
这段代码使用
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
def generateReceiptURL(baseUrl) {
randNum = rand(400000000)
return ("#{baseUrl}#{randNum}.html");
}
这段代码使用
Kernel.rand()
函数为它生成的收据页面生成“唯一”的标识符。由于 Kernel.rand()
是统计学的 PRNG,攻击者很容易猜到其生成的字符串。References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.structural.ruby.insecure_randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能够生成可预测值的函数作为随机数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
这段代码使用
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
def GenerateReceiptURL(baseUrl : String) : String {
val ranGen = new scala.util.Random()
ranGen.setSeed((new Date()).getTime())
return (baseUrl + ranGen.nextInt(400000000) + ".html")
}
这段代码使用
Random.nextInt()
函数为它生成的收据页面生成“唯一”的标识符。由于 Random.nextInt()
是统计学的 PRNG,攻击者很容易猜到其生成的字符串。尽管收据系统的底层设计并不完善,但若使用不会生成可预测收据标识符的随机数生成器(如密码学的 PRNG),就会更安全些。References
[1] Java Cryptography Architecture Oracle
[2] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[3] MSC02-J. Generate strong random numbers CERT
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.semantic.scala.insecure_randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能够生成可预测值的函数作为随机性数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
计算机是一种具有确定性的机器,因此无法产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它就很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则可能会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:以下代码使用统计学的 PRNG 创建用作重置密码令牌的随机值。
计算机是一种具有确定性的机器,因此无法产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它就很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则可能会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:以下代码使用统计学的 PRNG 创建用作重置密码令牌的随机值。
sqlite3_randomness(10, &reset_token)
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Elaine Barker and John Kelsey NIST Special Publication 800-90A: Recommendation for Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators NIST
[3] Elaine Barker and John Kelsey NIST DRAFT Special Publication 800-90B: Recommendation for the Entropy Sources Used for Random Bit Generation NIST
[4] Elaine Barker and John Kelsey DRAFT NIST Special Publication 800-90C: Recommendation for Random Bit Generator (RBG) Constructions NIST
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.semantic.swift.insecure_randomness
Abstract
标准的伪随机数值生成器不能抵挡各种加密攻击。
Explanation
在对安全性要求较高的环境中,使用能够生成可预测值的函数作为随机数据源,会产生 Insecure Randomness 错误。
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
这段代码使用
电脑是一种具有确定性的机器,因此不可能产生真正的随机性。伪随机数生成器 (PRNG) 近似于随机算法,始于一个能计算后续数值的种子。
PRNG 包括两种类型:统计学的 PRNG 和密码学的 PRNG。统计学的 PRNG 提供很多有用的统计属性,但其输出结果很容易预测,因此容易复制数值流。在安全性所依赖的生成值不可预测的情况下,这种类型并不适用。密码学的 PRNG 生成的输出结果较难预测,可解决这一问题。为保证值的加密安全性,必须使攻击者根本无法、或几乎不可能鉴别生成的随机值和真正的随机值。通常情况下,如果并未声明 PRNG 算法带有加密保护,那么它很可能就是统计学的 PRNG,因此不应在对安全性要求较高的环境中使用,否则会导致严重的漏洞(如易于猜测的密码、可预测的加密密钥、Session Hijacking 和 DNS Spoofing)。
示例 1:下面的代码可利用统计学的 PRNG 为购买产品后仍在有效期内的收据创建一个 URL。
...
Function genReceiptURL(baseURL)
dim randNum
randNum = Rnd()
genReceiptURL = baseURL & randNum & ".html"
End Function
...
这段代码使用
Rnd()
函数为它生成的收据页面生成“唯一”的标识符。由于 Rnd()
是统计学的 PRNG,攻击者很容易猜到其生成的字符串。尽管收据系统的底层设计并不完善,但若使用不会生成可预测收据标识符的随机数生成器(如密码学的 PRNG),就会更安全些。References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] CryptoAPI: CryptGenRandom() Microsoft
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 338
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.24
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.3.1 Authenticator Lifecycle Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 3.2.2 Session Binding Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 3.2.4 Session Binding Requirements (L2 L3), 6.3.1 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.2 Random Values (L2 L3), 6.3.3 Random Values (L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.3 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.4 - Terminal Software Design
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 330
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.2 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.2 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.2 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.2 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.2 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.2 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002050 CAT II
desc.semantic.vb.insecure_randomness