界: Input Validation and Representation

输入验证与表示问题是由元字符、交替编码和数字表示引起的。安全问题源于信任输入。这些问题包括:“Buffer Overflows”、“Cross-Site Scripting”攻击、“SQL Injection”等其他问题。

Log Forging (debug)

Abstract
将未经验证的用户输入写入日志文件可致使攻击者伪造日志条目或将恶意内容注入日志。
Explanation
在以下情况下会发生 Log Forging 漏洞:

1.数据从一个不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。



2.数据写入到应用程序或系统日志文件中。



为了便于以后的审阅、统计数据收集或调试,应用程序通常使用日志文件来储存事件或事务的历史记录。根据应用程序自身的特性,审阅日志文件可在必要时手动执行,也可以自动执行,即利用工具自动挑选日志中的重要事件或趋势信息。

如果攻击者可以向随后会被逐字记录到日志文件的应用程序提供数据,则可能会妨碍或误导日志文件的解读。最理想的情况是,攻击者可能通过向应用程序提供包括适当字符的输入,在日志文件中插入错误的条目。如果日志文件是自动处理的,那么攻击者就可以通过破坏文件格式或注入意外的字符,使文件无法使用。更阴险的攻击可能会导致日志文件中的统计信息发生偏差。通过伪造或其他方式,受到破坏的日志文件可用于掩护攻击者的跟踪轨迹,甚至还可以牵连第三方来执行恶意行为 [1]。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能向日志文件注入代码或者其他命令,利用日志处理实用程序中的漏洞 [2]。

示例 1:以下 REST 端点尝试从一个请求对象中读取整数值。如果该值未被解析为整数,输入就会被记录到日志中,附带一条提示相关情况的错误消息。


@HttpGet
global static void doGet() {
RestRequest req = RestContext.request;
String val = req.params.get('val');
try {
Integer i = Integer.valueOf(val);
...
} catch (TypeException e) {
System.Debug(LoggingLevel.INFO, 'Failed to parse val: '+val);
}
}


如果用户为 val 提交字符串“twenty-one”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


Failed to parse val: twenty-one


然而,如果攻击者提交字符串“twenty-one%0a%0aUser+logged+out%3dbadguy”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


Failed to parse val: twenty-one

User logged out=badguy


显然,攻击者可能会使用同样的机制插入任意日志条目。
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.apex.log_forging__debug_
Abstract
将未经验证的用户输入写入日志文件可致使攻击者伪造日志条目或将恶意内容注入日志。
Explanation

在以下情况下会发生 Log Forging 漏洞:

1. 数据从一个不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据写入到应用程序或系统日志文件中。

为了便于以后的审阅、统计数据收集或调试,应用程序通常使用日志文件来储存事件或事务的历史记录。 根据应用程序自身的特性,审阅日志文件可在必要时手动执行,也可以自动执行,即利用工具自动挑选日志中的重要事件或趋势信息。

如果攻击者可以向随后会被逐字记录到日志文件的应用程序提供数据,则可能会妨碍或误导日志文件的解读。 最理想的情况是,攻击者可能通过向应用程序提供包括适当字符的输入,在日志文件中插入错误的条目。 如果日志文件是自动处理的,那么攻击者就可以通过破坏文件格式或注入意外的字符,使文件无法使用。 更阴险的攻击可能会导致日志文件中的统计信息发生偏差。 通过伪造或其他方式,受到破坏的日志文件可用于掩护攻击者的跟踪轨迹,甚至还可以牵连第三方来执行恶意行为 [1]。 最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能向日志文件注入代码或者其他命令,利用日志处理实用程序中的漏洞 [2]。

示例 1: 下列 Web 应用程序代码会尝试从一个请求对象中读取整数值。 如果该值未被解析为整数,输入就会被记录到日志中,附带一条提示相关情况的错误消息。


...
String val = request.Params["val"];
try {
int value = Int.Parse(val);
}
catch (FormatException fe) {
log.Info("Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...


如果用户为 val 提交字符串“twenty-one”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


然而,如果攻击者提交字符串“twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


显然,攻击者可以使用同样的机制插入任意日志条目。

有些人认为在移动世界中,典型的 Web 应用程序漏洞(如 Log Forging)是无意义的 -- 为什么用户要攻击自己? 但是,谨记移动平台的本质是从各种来源下载并在相同设备上运行的应用程序。 恶意软件在银行应用程序附近运行的可能性很高,它们会强制扩展移动应用程序的攻击面(包括跨进程通信)。

示例 2:以下代码会调整Example 1 以适应 Android 平台。


...
String val = this.Intent.Extras.GetString("val");
try {
int value = Int.Parse(val);
}
catch (FormatException fe) {
Log.E(TAG, "Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] IDS03-J. Do not log unsanitized user input CERT
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.log_forging__debug_
Abstract
将未经验证的用户输入写入日志文件可致使攻击者伪造日志条目或将恶意内容注入日志。
Explanation
在以下情况下会发生 Log Forging 漏洞:

1.数据从一个不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2.数据写入到应用程序或系统日志文件中。

为了便于以后的审阅、统计数据收集或调试,应用程序通常使用日志文件来储存事件或事务的历史记录。根据应用程序自身的特性,审阅日志文件可在必要时手动执行,也可以自动执行,即利用工具自动挑选日志中的重要事件或趋势信息。

如果攻击者可以向随后会被逐字记录到日志文件的应用程序提供数据,则可能会妨碍或误导日志文件的解读。最理想的情况是,攻击者可能通过向应用程序提供包括适当字符的输入,在日志文件中插入错误的条目。如果日志文件是自动处理的,那么攻击者可以破坏文件格式或注入意外的字符,从而使文件无法使用。更阴险的攻击可能会导致日志文件中的统计信息发生偏差。通过伪造或其他方式,攻击者可以利用受到破坏的日志文件掩护其跟踪轨迹,甚至还可以牵连第三方来执行恶意行为 [1]。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能向日志文件注入代码或者其他命令,利用日志处理实用程序中的漏洞 [2]。

示例 1:下列 Web 应用程序代码会尝试从一个请求对象中读取整数值。如果该值未被解析为整数,输入就会被记录到日志中,附带一条提示相关情况的错误消息。


...
var idValue string

idValue = req.URL.Query().Get("id")
num, err := strconv.Atoi(idValue)

if err != nil {
sysLog.Debug("Failed to parse value: " + idValue)
}
...


如果用户为 val 提交字符串“twenty-one”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


然而,如果攻击者提交字符串“twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


显然,攻击者可以使用同样的机制插入任意日志条目。

References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] IDS03-J. Do not log unsanitized user input CERT
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.log_forging__debug
Abstract
将未经验证的用户输入写入日志文件可致使攻击者伪造日志条目或将恶意信息内容注入日志。
Explanation
在以下情况下会发生 Log Forging 的漏洞:

1. 数据从一个不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据写入到应用程序或系统日志文件中。

为了便于以后的审阅、统计数据收集或调试,应用程序通常使用日志文件来储存事件或事务的历史记录。根据应用程序自身的特性,审阅日志文件可在必要时手动执行,也可以自动执行,即利用工具自动挑选日志中的重要事件或带有某种倾向性的信息。

如果攻击者可以向随后会被逐字记录到日志文件的应用程序提供数据,则可能会妨碍或误导日志文件的解读。最理想的情况是,攻击者可能通过向应用程序提供包括适当字符的输入,在日志文件中插入错误的条目。如果日志文件是自动处理的,那么攻击者就可以通过破坏文件格式或注入意外的字符,从而使文件无法使用。更阴险的攻击可能会导致日志文件中的统计信息发生偏差。通过伪造或其他方式,受到破坏的日志文件可用于掩护攻击者的跟踪轨迹,甚至还可以牵连第三方来执行恶意行为 [1]。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能向日志文件注入代码或者其他命令,利用日志处理实用程序中的漏洞 [2]。

例 1: 下列 Web 应用程序代码会尝试从一个请求对象中读取整数值。如果数值未被解析为整数,输入就会被记录到日志中,附带一条提示相关情况的错误消息。


...
String val = request.getParameter("val");
try {
int value = Integer.parseInt(val);
}
catch (NumberFormatException nfe) {
log.info("Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...


如果用户为“val”提交字符串“twenty-one”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


然而,如果攻击者提交字符串“twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


显然,攻击者可以使用同样的机制插入任意日志条目。

有些人认为在移动世界中,典型的 Web 应用程序漏洞(如 Log Forging)是无意义的 -- 为什么用户要攻击自己?但是,谨记移动平台的本质是从各种来源下载并在相同设备上运行的应用程序。恶意软件在银行应用程序附近运行的可能性很高,它们会强制扩展移动应用程序的攻击面(包括跨进程通信)。

示例 2:以下代码会调整Example 1 以适应 Android 平台。


...
String val = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("val");
try {
int value = Integer.parseInt();
}
catch (NumberFormatException nfe) {
Log.e(TAG, "Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] IDS03-J. Do not log unsanitized user input CERT
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.log_forging__debug_
Abstract
将未经验证的用户输入写入日志文件可致使攻击者伪造日志条目或将恶意信息内容注入日志。
Explanation
在以下情况下会发生 Log Forging 的漏洞:

1. 数据从一个不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据写入到应用程序或系统日志文件中。

为了便于以后的审阅、统计数据收集或调试,应用程序通常使用日志文件来储存事件或事务的历史记录。根据应用程序自身的特性,审阅日志文件可在必要时手动执行,也可以自动执行,即利用工具自动挑选日志中的重要事件或带有某种倾向性的信息。

如果攻击者可以向随后会被逐字记录到日志文件的应用程序提供数据,则可能会妨碍或误导日志文件的解读。最理想的情况是,攻击者可能通过向应用程序提供包括适当字符的输入,在日志文件中插入错误的条目。如果日志文件是自动处理的,那么攻击者就可以通过破坏文件格式或注入意外的字符,从而使文件无法使用。更阴险的攻击可能会导致日志文件中的统计信息发生偏差。通过伪造或其他方式,受到破坏的日志文件可用于掩护攻击者的跟踪轨迹,甚至还可以牵连第三方来执行恶意行为 [1]。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能向日志文件注入代码或者其他命令,利用日志处理实用程序中的漏洞 [2]。

示例 1:下列 Web 应用程序代码会尝试从一个请求对象中读取整数值。如果数值未被解析为整数,输入就会被记录到日志中,附带一条提示相关情况的错误消息。


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

function listener(request, response){
var val = url.parse(request.url, true)['query']['val'];
if (isNaN(val)){
console.error("INFO: Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...
}
...
http.createServer(listener).listen(8080);
...


如果用户为“val”提交字符串“twenty-one”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


然而,如果攻击者提交字符串“twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


显然,攻击者可以使用同样的机制插入任意日志条目。
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.log_forging__debug_
Abstract
将未经验证的用户输入写入日志文件可致使攻击者伪造日志条目或将恶意信息内容注入日志。
Explanation
在以下情况下会发生 Log Forging 的漏洞:

1. 数据从一个不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据写入到应用程序或系统日志文件中。

为了便于以后的审阅、统计数据收集或调试,应用程序通常使用日志文件来储存事件或事务的历史记录。根据应用程序自身的特性,审阅日志文件可在必要时手动执行,也可以自动执行,即利用工具自动挑选日志中的重要事件或带有某种倾向性的信息。

如果攻击者可以向随后会被逐字记录到日志文件的应用程序提供数据,则可能会妨碍或误导日志文件的解读。最理想的情况是,攻击者可能通过向应用程序提供包括适当字符的输入,在日志文件中插入错误的条目。如果日志文件是自动处理的,那么攻击者就可以通过破坏文件格式或注入意外的字符,从而使文件无法使用。更阴险的攻击可能会导致日志文件中的统计信息发生偏差。通过伪造或其他方式,受到破坏的日志文件可用于掩护攻击者的跟踪轨迹,甚至还可以牵连第三方来执行恶意行为 [1]。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能向日志文件注入代码或者其他命令,利用日志处理实用程序中的漏洞 [2]。

例 1: 下列 Web 应用程序代码会尝试从一个请求对象中读取整数值。如果数值未被解析为整数,输入就会被记录到日志中,附带一条提示相关情况的错误消息。


...
val = request.GET["val"]
try:
int_value = int(val)
except:
logger.debug("Failed to parse val = " + val)
...


如果用户为“val”提交字符串“twenty-one”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


然而,如果攻击者提交字符串“twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


显然,攻击者可以使用同样的机制插入任意日志条目。
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.log_forging__debug_
Abstract
将未经验证的用户输入写入日志文件可致使攻击者伪造日志条目或将恶意信息内容注入日志。
Explanation
在以下情况下会发生 Log Forging 的漏洞:

1. 数据从一个不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据写入到应用程序或系统日志文件中。

为了便于以后的审阅、统计数据收集或调试,应用程序通常使用日志文件来储存事件或事务的历史记录。根据应用程序自身的特性,审阅日志文件可在必要时手动执行,也可以自动执行,即利用工具自动挑选日志中的重要事件或带有某种倾向性的信息。

如果攻击者可以向随后会被逐字记录到日志文件的应用程序提供数据,则可能会妨碍或误导日志文件的解读。最理想的情况是,攻击者可能通过向应用程序提供包括适当字符的输入,在日志文件中插入错误的条目。如果日志文件是自动处理的,那么攻击者就可以通过破坏文件格式或注入意外的字符,从而使文件无法使用。更阴险的攻击可能会导致日志文件中的统计信息发生偏差。通过伪造或其他方式,受到破坏的日志文件可用于掩护攻击者的跟踪轨迹,甚至还可以牵连第三方来执行恶意行为 [1]。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能向日志文件注入代码或者其他命令,利用日志处理实用程序中的漏洞 [2]。

例 1: 下列 Web 应用程序代码会尝试从一个请求对象中读取整数值。如果数值未被解析为整数,输入就会被记录到日志中,附带一条提示相关情况的错误消息。


...
val = req['val']
unless val.respond_to?(:to_int)
logger.debug("Failed to parse val")
logger.debug(val)
end
...


如果用户为“val”提交字符串“twenty-one”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


DEBUG: Failed to parse val
DEBUG: twenty-one


然而,如果攻击者提交字符串“twenty-one%0a%DEBUG:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


DEBUG: Failed to parse val
DEBUG: twenty-one

DEBUG: User logged out=badguy


显然,攻击者可以使用同样的机制插入任意日志条目。
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.log_forging__debug_