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。

SQL Injection: LINQ

Abstract
通过不可信来源的输入构建动态 LINQ 指令,攻击者就能够修改指令的含义或者执行任意 SQL 命令。
Explanation
与 LINQ 相关的 injection 错误在以下情况下出现:

1. 数据从一个不可信赖的数据源进入程序。

2. 数据用于动态地构造一个查询。
示例 1:以下代码动态地构造并执行了一个 LINQ 查询,用于搜索与指定名称相匹配的项。该查询仅会显示条目 owner 与被授予权限的当前用户一致的条目。


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

var items = dataContext.ExecuteCommand<Item>(query);
...


查询计划执行以下代码:


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


但是,由于这个查询是动态构造的,由一个不变的基查询字符串和一个用户输入字符串连接而成,因此只有在 itemName 不包含单引号字符时,才会正确执行这一查询。如果一个用户名为 wiley 的攻击者为 itemName 输入字符串“name' OR 'a'='a”,那么查询就会变成:


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


附加条件 OR 'a'='a' 会使 where 从句永远评估为 true,因此该查询在逻辑上将等同于一个更为简化的查询:


SELECT * FROM items;


通常,查询必须仅返回已通过身份验证的用户所拥有的条目,而通过以这种方式简化查询,攻击者就可以规避这一要求。现在,查询会返回存储在 items 表中的所有条目,而不论其指定所有者是谁。

示例 2:此示例说明了将不同的恶意值传递给Example 1.中构造和执行的查询所带来的影响。如果一个用户名为 wiley 的攻击者为 itemName 输入字符串“name'); DELETE FROM items; --”,则该查询就会变为以下两个查询:


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

DELETE FROM items;

--'


众多数据库服务器,其中包括 Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000,都可以一次性执行多条用分号分隔的 SQL 指令。对于那些不允许运行用分号分隔的批量指令的数据库服务器,比如 Oracle 和其他数据库服务器,攻击者输入的这个字符串只会导致错误;但是在那些支持这种操作的数据库服务器上,攻击者可能会通过执行多条指令而在数据库上执行任意命令。

注意末尾的一对连字符 (--);这在大多数数据库服务器上都表示该语句剩余部分将视为注释,不会加以执行 [4]。在这种情况下,可通过注释字符删除修改后的查询遗留的末尾单引号。而在不允许通过这种方式使用注释的数据库上,攻击者通常仍可使用类似于Example 1.中所用的技巧进行攻击。如果攻击者输入字符串“name'); DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a”,将创建以下三个有效语句:


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

DELETE FROM items;

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


避免 LINQ injection 攻击的传统方法之一是,作为一个输入验证问题来处理,只接受列在安全值允许列表中的字符,或者识别并避免列在潜在恶意值列表(拒绝列表)中的字符。检验允许列表是一种非常有效的方法,它可以强制执行严格的输入验证规则,但是参数化的 LINQ 语句所需的维护工作更少,而且能提供更好的安全保障。而对于通常采用的执行拒绝列表方式,由于总是存在一些小漏洞,所以并不能有效地防止 LINQ Injection 攻击。例如,攻击者可以:

— 把没有被黑名单引用的值作为目标
- 寻找方法以绕过某些需要转义的元字符
- 使用存储过程隐藏注入的元字符

手动去除 LINQ 查询中的元字符有一定的帮助,但是并不能完全保护您的应用程序免受 LINQ injection 攻击。

防范 LINQ injection 攻击的另外一种常用方式是使用存储过程。虽然存储过程可以阻止某些类型的 LINQ injection 攻击,但是对于绝大多数攻击仍无能为力。存储过程有助于避免 LINQ injection 的常用方式是限制可作为参数传入的指令类型。但是,有许多方法都可以绕过这一限制,许多危险的表达式仍可以传入存储过程。所以再次强调,存储过程可以避免部分情况,但是并不能完全保护您的应用系统抵御 LINQ injection 的攻击。
References
[1] S. J. Friedl SQL Injection Attacks by Example
[2] P. Litwin Stop SQL Injection Attacks Before They Stop You MSDN Magazine
[3] P. Finnigan SQL Injection and Oracle, Part One Security Focus
[4] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[17] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[18] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[19] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[67] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.dotnet.sql_injection_linq