102 个项目已找到
弱点
Abstract
允许用户输入以直接更改文件权限可能导致攻击者能够访问以其他方式保护的系统资源。
Explanation
当满足以下任一条件时,就会发生 File Permission Manipulation 错误:

1.攻击者可能会指定操作中所用的路径,以修改文件系统上的权限。

2.攻击者可能会指定文件系统上的操作所分配的权限。

示例 1:以下代码使用系统环境变量中的输入设置文件权限。如果攻击者可更改系统环境变量,则他们可能会使用该程序获得程序所处理文件的访问权限。如果程序依然易受 Path Manipulation 的攻击,那么攻击者可能会利用这一漏洞来访问系统中的任意文件。


permissions := strconv.Atoi(os.Getenv("filePermissions"));
fMode := os.FileMode(permissions)
os.chmod(filePath, fMode);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
允许用户输入以直接更改文件权限可能导致攻击者能够访问以其他方式保护的系统资源。
Explanation
当满足以下任一条件时,就会产生 file permission manipulation 错误:

1. 攻击者能够指定在 file system 中修改权限的操作所使用的路径。

2. 攻击者能够指定 file system 上的操作所分配的权限。

示例 1:以下代码使用来自系统属性的输入来设置默认权限掩码。如果攻击者更改了系统属性,则他们可以使用该程序获得该程序所处理文件的访问权限。如果程序还容易受路径篡改攻击,那么攻击者可能会利用这一漏洞访问系统中的任意文件。


String permissionMask = System.getProperty("defaultFileMask");
Path filePath = userFile.toPath();
...
Set<PosixFilePermission> perms = PosixFilePermissions.fromString(permissionMask);
Files.setPosixFilePermissions(filePath, perms);
...
References
[1] FIO01-J. Create files with appropriate access permissions CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
允许用户输入以直接更改文件权限可能导致攻击者能够访问以其他方式保护的系统资源。
Explanation
当满足以下任一条件时,就会产生 file permission manipulation 错误:

1. 攻击者能够指定在 file system 中修改权限的操作所使用的路径。

2. 攻击者能够指定 file system 上的操作所分配的权限。

示例:以下代码旨在为用户设置适当的文件权限以通过 FTP 上载网页。它使用来自 HTTP 请求的输入将文件标记为外部用户可查看的文件。


$rName = $_GET['publicReport'];
chmod("/home/". authenticateUser . "/public_html/" . rName,"0755");
...


但是,如果攻击者为 publicReport 提供恶意值(例如,../../localuser/public_html/.htpasswd),那么应用程序将允许攻击者读取指定文件。

示例 2:以下代码使用来自配置文件的输入来设置默认权限掩码。如果攻击者可以篡改配置文件,则他们可以使用该程序获得该程序所处理文件的访问权限。如果程序还容易受路径篡改攻击,那么攻击者可能会利用这一漏洞访问系统中的任意文件。


...
$mask = $CONFIG_TXT['perms'];
chmod($filename,$mask);
...
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
允许用户输入以直接更改文件权限可能导致攻击者能够访问以其他方式保护的系统资源。
Explanation
当满足以下任一条件时,就会产生 File Permission Manipulation 错误:

1. 攻击者能够指定在文件系统上修改权限的操作所使用的路径。

2. 攻击者能够指定文件系统上的操作所分配的权限。

示例 1: 以下代码使用系统环境变量中的输入设置文件权限。 如果攻击者可更改系统环境变量,则他们可能使用该程序获得程序所处理文件的访问权限。 如果程序还容易受 Path Manipulation 攻击,那么攻击者可能会利用这一漏洞访问系统中的任意文件。


permissions = os.getenv("filePermissions");
os.chmod(filePath, permissions);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
允许用户输入以直接更改文件权限可能导致攻击者能够访问以其他方式保护的系统资源。
Explanation
当满足以下任一条件时,就会产生 file permission manipulation 错误:

1. 攻击者能够指定在 file system 中修改权限的操作所使用的路径。

2. 攻击者能够指定 file system 上的操作所分配的权限。

示例:以下代码旨在为用户设置适当的文件权限以通过 FTP 上载网页。它使用来自 HTTP 请求的输入将文件标记为外部用户可查看的文件。


...
rName = req['publicReport']
File.chmod("/home/#{authenticatedUser}/public_html/#{rName}", "0755")
...


但是,如果攻击者为 publicReport 提供恶意值(例如,../../localuser/public_html/.htpasswd),那么应用程序将允许攻击者读取指定文件。

示例 2:以下代码使用来自配置文件的输入来设置默认权限掩码。如果攻击者可以篡改配置文件,则他们可以使用该程序获得该程序所处理文件的访问权限。如果程序还容易受路径篡改攻击,那么攻击者可能会利用这一漏洞访问系统中的任意文件。


...
mask = config_params['perms']
File.chmod(filename, mask)
...
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
程序会定义过于宽松的跨域策略。
Explanation
默认情况下,Flash 应用程序需要遵循 Same Origin Policy(同源策略),该策略可确保来自同一个域的两个 SWF 应用程序能够访问彼此的数据。Adobe Flash 允许开发人员通过编程或 crossdomain.xml 配置文件中的相应设置来更改该策略。不过,更改此设置时应小心谨慎,如果跨域策略过于宽松,恶意应用程序就能趁机采用不当方式与受害者应用程序进行通信,从而导致发生欺骗、数据被盗、转发及其他攻击。

示例 1:以下摘录的代码示例使用通配符以编程方式指定允许与应用程序通信的域。


flash.system.Security.allowDomain("*");


* 作为 allowDomain() 的参数表明该应用程序的数据可供来自任何域的其他 SWF 应用程序访问。
References
[1] Peleus Uhley Creating more secure SWF web applications
[2] Matt Wood and Prajakta Jagdale Auditing Adobe Flash through Static Analysis
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 942
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [24] CWE ID 863
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001368, CCI-001414
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.4.6 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.semantic.actionscript.flash_misconfiguration_overly_permissive_cross_domain_policy
Abstract
程序定义了一个过于宽松的自定义标头策略。
Explanation
默认情况下,Flash 应用程序需要遵循 Same Origin Policy(同源策略),该策略可确保来自同一个域的两个 SWF 应用程序能够访问彼此的数据。Adobe Flash 允许开发人员通过编程或 crossdomain.xml 配置文件中的相应设置来更改该策略。从 Flash Player 9,0,124,0 开始,Adobe 还引入了定义 Flash Player 可以跨域发送的自定义标头的功能。但是,在定义这些设置时应小心谨慎,因为当过于宽松的自定义标头策略与过于宽松的跨域策略一起应用时,将允许恶意应用程序将其选择的标头发送到目标应用程序,从而可能导致各种攻击,或导致不知道如何处理接收到的标头的应用程序在执行中出现错误。

示例 1:以下配置显示了如何使用通配符指定 Flash Player 可以跨域发送的标头。


<cross-domain-policy>
<allow-http-request-headers-from domain="*" headers="*"/>
</cross-domain-policy>


使用 * 作为 headers 属性的值表明可以跨域发送任何标头。
References
[1] Peleus Uhley Creating more secure SWF web applications
[2] Matt Wood and Prajakta Jagdale Auditing Adobe Flash through Static Analysis
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001368, CCI-001414
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.config.actionscript.flash_misconfiguration_overly_permissive_custom_headers_policy
Abstract
程序利用未经验证的用户输入避开预期的跨域策略限制。
Explanation
默认情况下,Flash 应用程序需要遵循 Same Origin Policy(同源策略),该策略可确保来自同一个域的两个 SWF 应用程序能够访问彼此的数据。Adobe Flash 允许开发人员通过编程或 crossdomain.xml 配置文件中的相应设置来更改该策略。不过,在确定可更改此设置的人时应小心谨慎,如果跨域策略过于宽松,恶意应用程序就能趁机采用不当方式与受害者应用程序进行通信,从而导致发生欺骗、数据被盗、转发及其他攻击。在以下情况下会发生策略限制绕过漏洞:

1. 数据从一个不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据用于加载或修改跨域策略设置。
示例 1:以下代码会将已加载的 SWF 文件中的一个参数值作为用于加载跨域策略文件的 URL。


...
var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var url:String = String(params["url"]);
flash.system.Security.loadPolicyFile(url);
...
示例 2:以下代码会使用已加载的 SWF 文件中的一个参数值来定义可信赖的域列表。


...
var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var domain:String = String(params["domain"]);
flash.system.Security.allowDomain(domain);
...
References
[1] Peleus Uhley Creating more secure SWF web applications
[2] Matt Wood and Prajakta Jagdale Auditing Adobe Flash through Static Analysis
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001368, CCI-001414
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.actionscript.flash_misconfiguration_policy_restrictions_bypass
Abstract
程序允许 HTTP 和 HTTPS SWF 应用程序进行通信。
Explanation
从 Flash Player 7 开始,默认情况下通过 HTTP 加载的 SWF 应用程序不允许访问通过 HTTPS 加载的 SWF 应用程序的数据。Adobe Flash 允许开发者通过编程或 crossdomain.xml 配置文件中的相应设置来更改此项限制。不过,定义这些设置时应小心谨慎,因为通过 HTTP 加载的 SWF 应用程序容易受到中间人攻击,所以不应信赖此程序。

示例:以下代码会调用 allowInsecureDomain(),它会取消相关限制,从而允许通过 HTTP 加载的 SWF 应用程序访问通过 HTTPS 加载的 SWF 应用程序中的数据。


flash.system.Security.allowInsecureDomain("*");
References
[1] Peleus Uhley Creating more secure SWF web applications
[2] Matt Wood and Prajakta Jagdale Auditing Adobe Flash through Static Analysis
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001368, CCI-001414
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 862
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.semantic.actionscript.flash_misconfiguration_unauthorized_data_access
Abstract
调试信息可帮助攻击者了解系统并计划攻击形式。
Explanation
如果您使用 Blaze DS 来记录所有意外事件,services-config.xml 描述符文件会指定一个“Logging”XML 元素来描述日志记录的不同方面。它类似于以下内容:

示例:

<logging>
<target class="flex.messaging.log.ConsoleTarget" level="Debug">
<properties>
<prefix>[BlazeDS]</prefix>
<includeDate>false</includeDate>
<includeTime>false</includeTime>
<includeLevel>false</includeLevel>
<includeCategory>false</includeCategory>
</properties>
<filters>
<pattern>Endpoint.*</pattern>
<pattern>Service.*</pattern>
<pattern>Configuration</pattern>
</filters>
</target>
</logging>


target 标签可采用一个名为 level 的可选属性,用来指示日志级别。如果调试级别设置为太详细的级别,您的应用程序可能会将敏感数据写入日志文件。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 11
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001312, CCI-001314, CCI-002420, CCI-003272
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity, SI-11 Error Handling
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.flex_misconfiguration_debug_information
Abstract
允许攻击者控制函数的 format string 会导致 buffer overflow。
Explanation
Format string 漏洞会在以下情况下发生:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。



2. 数据作为 format string 参数传送到某个函数,如 sprintf()FormatMessageW()syslog()
示例 1:以下代码使用 snprintf() 将一个命令行参数复制到缓冲区中。


int main(int argc, char **argv){
char buf[128];
...
snprintf(buf,128,argv[1]);
}


该代码允许攻击者查看堆栈的内容,并使用包含一连串的格式化指令的命令行参数对堆栈进行写入。攻击者能够通过提供更多的格式化指令(如 %x)来读取堆栈中的内容,然后函数会作为即将格式化的参数使用。(在本例中,函数没有采用任何即将格式化的参数。)通过使用 %n 格式化指令,攻击者能够对堆栈进行写入,进而使 snprintf() 记下迄今为止输出的字节数,并将其传送给指定的参数(而不是直接从参数中读取数值,这是程序员最初设计的行为)。对于这种攻击,更为的复杂的形式是使用四条交错的写入来完全控制堆栈中某个指针的值。

示例 2:有些实现方式通过提供格式化指令来控制内存中的读写位置,这样可以简化较高级的攻击。以下代码就是这种指令的一个例子,它为 glibc 而写:


printf("%d %d %1$d %1$d\n", 5, 9);


该代码产生了如下输出:


5 9 5 5


此外,还可以使用 half-writes (%hn) 来准确地控制内存中的任意 DWORDS,这会大大地降低执行攻击的难度,否则此攻击将需要进行四次交错写入,如Example 1 中所述。

示例 3:简单的 format string 漏洞通常由表面上看似没有什么危险的快捷方式所导致。某些快捷方式的使用已经深入人心,以致于程序员可能都不会意识到他们所使用的函数需要一个 format string 参数。

例如,syslog() 函数有时候可以这样使用:


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, cmdBuf);
...


由于 syslog() 的第二个参数是格式字符串,因此 cmdBuf 中的任何格式化指令都会按照Example 1 中所述进行解释。

以下代码显示了 syslog() 的正确使用方式:


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, "%s", cmdBuf);
...
References
[1] T. Newsham Format String Attacks Guardent, Inc.
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 134
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.2 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 134
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.dataflow.cpp.format_string
Abstract
攻击者可以控制 format string,发起类似于缓冲区溢出的攻击。
Explanation
Format string 漏洞会在以下情况下发生:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。



2. 数据作为 format string 参数传送到某个函数,如 sprintf()FormatMessageW()syslog()NSLogNSString.stringWithFormat示例 1:下面的代码将命令行参数作为 NSString.stringWithFormat: 中的 format string。


int main(int argc, char **argv){
char buf[128];
...
[NSString stringWithFormat:argv[1], argv[2] ];
}


该代码允许攻击者查看堆栈的内容,并使用包含一连串的格式化指令的命令行参数损坏堆栈。攻击者能够通过提供更多的格式化指令(如 %x)来读取堆栈中的内容,然后函数会作为即将格式化的参数使用。(在本例中,函数没有采用任何即将格式化的参数。)

Objective-C 支持旧版 C 语言的标准库,因此如果您的应用程序使用 C API,则可以使用以下示例。

示例 2:有些实现方式通过提供格式化指令来控制内存中的读写位置,这样可以简化较高级的攻击。以下代码就是这种指令的一个例子,它为 glibc 而写:


printf("%d %d %1$d %1$d\n", 5, 9);


该代码产生了如下输出:


5 9 5 5


此外,还可以使用 half-writes (%hn) 来准确地控制内存中的任意 DWORDS,这会大大地降低执行攻击的难度,否则此攻击将需要进行四次交错写入,如Example 1 中所述。

示例 3:简单的 format string 漏洞通常由表面上看似没有什么危险的快捷方式所导致。某些快捷方式的使用已经深入人心,以致于程序员可能都不会意识到他们所使用的函数需要一个 format string 参数。

例如,syslog() 函数有时候可以这样使用:


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, cmdBuf);
...


由于 syslog() 的第二个参数是格式字符串,因此 cmdBuf 中的任何格式化指令都会按照Example 1 中所述进行解释。

以下代码显示了 syslog() 的正确使用方式:


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, "%s", cmdBuf);
...
示例 4:Apple 核心类提供了利用 format string 漏洞的有趣途径。

例如,String.stringByAppendingFormat() 函数有时候可以这样使用:


...
NSString test = @"Sample Text.";
test = [test stringByAppendingFormat:[MyClass
formatInput:inputControl.text]];
...


stringByAppendingFormat 会解析传递给它的 NSString 中包含的任意 format string 字符。

以下代码显示了 stringByAppendingFormat() 的正确使用方式:


...
NSString test = @"Sample Text.";
test = [test stringByAppendingFormat:@"%@", [MyClass
formatInput:inputControl.text]];
...
References
[1] T. Newsham Format String Attacks Guardent, Inc.
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 134
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.2 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 134
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.dataflow.objc.format_string
Abstract
该程序使用了一个结构不良的 format string,其中包含的转换说明符的数量与函数具有的参数数量不一致。不正确的 format string 会导致该程序从分配的内存边界之外读取数据,这可以让攻击者访问敏感信息、引入错误行为,或造成程序崩溃。
Explanation
Buffer overflow 可能是人们最熟悉的一种软件安全漏洞。虽然绝大多数软件开发者都知道什么是 Buffer overflow 漏洞,但是无论是对继承下来的或是新开发的应用程序来说,Buffer overflow 攻击仍然是一种最常见的攻击形式。对于这个问题出现的原因,一方面是造成 buffer overflow 漏洞的方式有很多种,另一方面是用于防止 buffer overflow 的技术也容易出错。

在一个典型的 buffer overflow 攻击中,攻击者将数据传送到某个程序,程序会将这些数据储存到一个较小的堆栈缓冲区内。结果,调用堆栈上的信息会被覆盖,其中包括函数的返回指针。数据会被用来设置返回指针的值,这样,当该函数返回时,函数的控制权便会转移给包含在攻击者数据中的恶意代码。

虽然这种类型的堆栈 buffer overflow 在某些平台和开发组织中十分常见,但仍不乏存在其他各种类型的 buffer overflow,其中包括堆 buffer overflow 和 off-by-one 错误等。有关 buffer overflow 如何进行攻击的详细信息,许多优秀的著作都进行了相关介绍,如 Building Secure Software [1]、Writing Secure Code [2] 以及 The Shellcoder's Handbook [3]。

在代码层上,buffer overflow 漏洞通常会违反程序员的各种假设。C 和 C++ 中的很多内存处理函数都没有执行边界检查,因而可轻易地超出缓冲区所操作的、已分配的边界。即使是边界函数(如 strncpy()),使用方式不正确也会引发漏洞。对内存的处理加之有关数据段大小和结构方面所存在种种错误假设,是导致大多数 buffer overflow 漏洞产生的根源。

在这种情况下,结构不良的 format string 会导致程序访问分配的内存边界之外的值。

示例:以下代码会从堆栈中读取任意值,因为格式说明符的数量与传递给该函数的参数数量不一致。

void wrongNumberArgs(char *s, float f, int d) {
char buf[1024];
sprintf(buf, "Wrong number of %.512s");
}
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] J. Koziol et al. The Shellcoder's Handbook: Discovering and Exploiting Security Holes John Wiley & Sons
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 126
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [5] CWE ID 125
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [4] CWE ID 125
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [3] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [5] CWE ID 125, [19] CWE ID 119
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [7] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-16 Memory Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.internal.cpp.format_string_argument_number_mismatch
Abstract
该程序使用了一个结构不良的 format string,其中包含的转换说明符与传递给该函数的参数类型不一致。不正确的 format string 会导致该程序转换值时出错,还可能会在分配的内存边界之外读写数据,这会引入错误的行为或造成程序崩溃。
Explanation
Buffer overflow 可能是人们最熟悉的一种软件安全漏洞。虽然绝大多数软件开发者都知道什么是 Buffer overflow 漏洞,但是无论是对继承下来的或是新开发的应用程序来说,Buffer overflow 攻击仍然是一种最常见的攻击形式。对于这个问题出现的原因,一方面是造成 buffer overflow 漏洞的方式有很多种,另一方面是用于防止 buffer overflow 的技术也容易出错。

在一个典型的 buffer overflow 攻击中,攻击者将数据传送到某个程序,程序会将这些数据储存到一个较小的堆栈缓冲区内。结果,调用堆栈上的信息会被覆盖,其中包括函数的返回指针。数据会被用来设置返回指针的值,这样,当该函数返回时,函数的控制权便会转移给包含在攻击者数据中的恶意代码。

虽然这种类型的堆栈 buffer overflow 在某些平台和开发组织中十分常见,但仍不乏存在其他各种类型的 buffer overflow,其中包括堆 buffer overflow 和 off-by-one 错误等。有关 buffer overflow 如何进行攻击的详细信息,许多优秀的著作都进行了相关介绍,如 Building Secure Software [1]、Writing Secure Code [2] 以及 The Shellcoder's Handbook [3]。

在代码层上,buffer overflow 漏洞通常会违反程序员的各种假设。C 和 C++ 中的很多内存处理函数都没有执行边界检查,因而可轻易地超出缓冲区所操作的、已分配的边界。即使是边界函数(如 strncpy()),使用方式不正确也会引发漏洞。对内存的处理加之有关数据段大小和结构方面所存在种种错误假设,是导致大多数 buffer overflow 漏洞产生的根源。

在这里,一个不正确地构成的 format string 会导致程序错误地进行值的转换,或访问分配的内存边界之外的值。

示例:以下代码使用 %d 格式说明符将一个浮点转换为 f


void ArgTypeMismatch(float f, int d, char *s, wchar *ws) {
char buf[1024];
sprintf(buf, "Wrong type of %d", f);
...
}
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] J. Koziol et al. The Shellcoder's Handbook: Discovering and Exploiting Security Holes John Wiley & Sons
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 125, CWE ID 787
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [5] CWE ID 125, [12] CWE ID 787
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [4] CWE ID 125, [2] CWE ID 787
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [1] CWE ID 787, [3] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [1] CWE ID 787, [5] CWE ID 125, [19] CWE ID 119
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [1] CWE ID 787, [7] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 10.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 5-0-3
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-16 Memory Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.internal.cpp.format_string_argument_type_mismatch
Abstract
如果在 URL 中加入未验证的输入,可能会让攻击者重写请求参数的值。攻击者可能会重写现有的参数值、注入新的参数或利用直接得到的变量。
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) 攻击包含将编码的查询字符串分隔符注入其他现有的参数中。如果 Web 应用程序没有正确地检查用户输入,恶意用户可能会破坏应用程序的逻辑,进行客户端侧或服务器侧攻击。如果再向 Web 应用程序提交参数,并且如果这些参数与现有参数的名称相同,则 Web 应用程序可能会有下列一种反应:

它可能只从第一个参数中提取数据
它可能从最后一个参数中提取数据
它可能从所有参数中提取数据并把它们连接起来


例如:
- ASP.NET/IIS 使用所有情况下出现的参数
- Apache Tomcat 仅使用第一次出现的参数并忽略其他参数
- mod_perl/Apache 将值转换为值数组

示例 1:根据应用程序服务器和应用程序自身的逻辑,下列请求可能造成与身份验证系统的混淆,使攻击者能模拟别的用户。
http://www.server.com/login.aspx?name=alice&name=hacker

示例 2:下列代码使用来自于 HTTP 请求的输入来呈现两个超链接。

...
String lang = Request.Form["lang"];
WebClient client = new WebClient();
client.BaseAddress = url;
NameValueCollection myQueryStringCollection = new NameValueCollection();
myQueryStringCollection.Add("q", lang);
client.QueryString = myQueryStringCollection;
Stream data = client.OpenRead(url);
...


URL: http://www.host.com/election.aspx?poll_id=4567
链接 1:<a href="http://www.host.com/vote.aspx?poll_id=4567&lang=en">英语<a>
链接 2:<a href="http://www.host.com/vote.aspx?poll_id=4567&lang=es">西班牙语<a>

程序员尚未考虑下面这种可能性:攻击者可能会提供一个 lang(例如 en&poll_id=1),然后攻击者可以随意更改该 poll_id
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
如果在 URL 中加入未验证的输入,可能会让攻击者重写请求参数的值。攻击者可能会重写现有的参数值、注入新的参数或利用直接得到的变量。
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) 攻击包含将编码的查询字符串分隔符注入其他现有的参数中。如果 Web 应用程序没有正确地检查用户输入,恶意用户可能会破坏应用程序的逻辑,进行客户端侧或服务器侧攻击。如果再向 Web 应用程序提交参数,并且如果这些参数与现有参数的名称相同,则 Web 应用程序可能会有下列一种反应:

它可能只从第一个参数中提取数据
它可能从最后一个参数中提取数据
它可能从所有参数中提取数据并把它们连接起来


例如:
- ASP.NET/IIS 使用所有情况下出现的参数
- Apache Tomcat 仅使用第一次出现的参数并忽略其他参数
- mod_perl/Apache 将值转换为值数组

例 1:根据应用程序服务器和应用程序自身的逻辑,下列请求可能造成与身份验证系统的混淆,使攻击者能模拟别的用户。
http://www.example.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

例 2:下列代码使用来自于 HTTP 请求的输入来呈现两个超链接。

...
String lang = request.getParameter("lang");
GetMethod get = new GetMethod("http://www.example.com");
get.setQueryString("lang=" + lang + "&poll_id=" + poll_id);
get.execute();
...


URL:http://www.example.com?poll_id=4567
链接 1:<a href="001">英语<a>
链接 2:<a href="002">西班牙语<a>

程序员尚未考虑下面这种可能性:攻击者可能会提供一个 lang(例如 en&poll_id=1),然后攻击者将可以随意更改该 poll_id
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
如果在 URL 中加入未验证的输入,可能会让攻击者重写请求参数的值。攻击者可能会重写现有的参数值、注入新的参数或利用直接得到的变量。
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) 攻击包含将编码的查询字符串分隔符注入其他现有的参数中。如果 Web 应用程序没有正确地检查用户输入,恶意用户可能会破坏应用程序的逻辑,进行客户端侧或服务器侧攻击。如果再向 Web 应用程序提交参数,并且如果这些参数与现有参数的名称相同,则 Web 应用程序可能会有下列一种反应:

它可能只从第一个参数中提取数据
它可能从最后一个参数中提取数据
它可能从所有参数中提取数据并把它们连接起来


例如:
- ASP.NET/IIS 使用所有情况下出现的参数
- Apache Tomcat 仅使用第一次出现的参数并忽略其他参数
- mod_perl/Apache 将值转换为值数组

例 1:根据应用程序服务器和应用程序自身的逻辑,下列请求可能造成与身份验证系统的混淆,使攻击者能模拟别的用户。
http://www.server.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

例 2:下列代码使用来自于 HTTP 请求的输入来呈现两个超链接。


<%
...
$id = $_GET["id"];
header("Location: http://www.host.com/election.php?poll_id=" . $id);
...
%>


URL: http://www.host.com/election.php?poll_id=4567
链接 1: <a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=white">White 先生的投票<a>
链接 2: <a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green">Green 女士的投票<a>

程序员没有考虑到攻击者可能提供 poll_id(例如“4567&candidate=green”)的可能性,届时得到的页面中将包含以下注入链接,因此,Green 女士将始终投票选择捡出第一个参数的应用程序服务器。
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=white">White 先生的投票<a>
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=green">Green 女士的投票<a>
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
如果在 URL 中加入未验证的输入,可能会让攻击者重写请求参数的值。攻击者可能会重写现有的参数值、注入新的参数或利用直接得到的变量。
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) 攻击包含将编码的查询字符串分隔符注入其他现有的参数中。如果 Web 应用程序没有正确地检查用户输入,恶意用户可能会破坏应用程序的逻辑,进行客户端侧或服务器侧攻击。如果再向 Web 应用程序提交参数,并且如果这些参数与现有参数的名称相同,则 Web 应用程序可能会有下列一种反应:

它可能只从第一个参数中提取数据。
它可能从最后一个参数中提取数据。
它可能从所有参数中提取数据并把它们连接起来。


例如:
- ASP.NET/IIS 使用所有情况下出现的参数
- Apache Tomcat 仅使用第一次出现的参数并忽略其他参数
- mod_perl/Apache 将值转换为值数组

例 1:根据应用程序服务器和应用程序自身的逻辑,下列请求可能造成与身份验证系统的混淆,使攻击者能模拟别的用户。
http://www.server.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

因为这表明,攻击者已经指定了 name=alice,但他们添加了额外的 name=alice&,如果在提取第一个匹配项的服务器上使用它,那么它可能会模仿 alice 以便获取有关她的帐户的详细信息。
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
该应用程序允许安装第三方键盘扩展。
Explanation
键盘扩展可以读取用户输入的每一个按键。第三方键盘通常用于简化文本输入或添加额外的表情符号,他们可以记录用户输入的内容,甚至将其发送到远程服务器进行处理。恶意键盘还可以作为键盘记录器来分发,以读取用户输入的每一个键,从而窃取凭据或信用卡号等敏感数据。
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] UIApplicationDelegate Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 522, CWE ID 829
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-3
desc.structural.objc.input_interception_keyboard_extensions_allowed
Abstract
该应用程序允许安装第三方键盘扩展。
Explanation
键盘扩展可以读取用户输入的每一个按键。第三方键盘通常用于简化文本输入或添加额外的表情符号,他们可以记录用户输入的内容,甚至将其发送到远程服务器进行处理。恶意键盘还可以作为键盘记录器来分发,以读取用户输入的每一个键,从而窃取凭据或信用卡号等敏感数据。
References
[1] UIApplicationDelegate Apple
[2] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 522, CWE ID 829
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-3
desc.structural.swift.input_interception_keyboard_extensions_allowed
Abstract
程序应该在操作结束后立即丢弃执行诸如 chroot() 一类的操作所需要的提高了的权限。
Explanation
当程序调用一个受权限控制的函数时,比如 chroot(),它必须先获取 root 权限。当受权限控制的操作完成后,程序应该马上丢弃 root 权限并且返回调用它的用户权限等级。
示例:以下的代码调用了 chroot() 函数,将应用程序限制在 APP_HOME 下的 file system 的子集中,以防止攻击者通过程序访问位于其他地方的未经授权的文件。然后,代码打开一个由用户指定的文件并处理文件的内容。


...
chroot(APP_HOME);
chdir("/");

FILE* data = fopen(argv[1], "r+");
...


在打开文件之前,把应用程序的操作限制在主目录之内是一个相对安全的方法。然而,不使用一些非零值对函数 setuid() 进行调用,意味着应用程序仍在使用没有必要的 root 权限进行操作。任何由攻击者对应用程序实施的成功盗取都会导致发生权限扩大的攻击,因为所有的恶意操作都将以超级用户的权限执行。如果应用程序把权限等级降低到一个非 root 用户,则会显著减少很多潜在的破坏。
References
[1] A. Chuvakin Using Chroot Securely
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 272
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege, CM-7 Least Functionality
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.3 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.4.3 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.controlflow.cpp.least_privilege_violation
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:下列 Web 应用程序代码会尝试从一个请求对象中读取值。并记录该值。


...
DATA log_msg TYPE bal_s_msg.

val = request->get_form_field( 'val' ).

log_msg-msgid = 'XY'.
log_msg-msgty = 'E'.
log_msg-msgno = '123'.
log_msg-msgv1 = 'VAL: '.
log_msg-msgv2 = val.

CALL FUNCTION 'BAL_LOG_MSG_ADD'
EXPORTING
I_S_MSG = log_msg
EXCEPTIONS
LOG_NOT_FOUND = 1
MSG_INCONSISTENT = 2
LOG_IS_FULL = 3
OTHERS = 4.
...


如果用户为“val”提交字符串“FOO”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


XY E 123 VAL: FOO


然而,如果攻击者提交字符串“FOO XY E 124 VAL: BAR”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


XY E 123 VAL: FOO XY E 124 VAL: BAR


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 - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.abap.log_forging
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: 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 params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var val:String = String(params["username"]);
var value:Number = parseInt(val);
if (value == Number.NaN) {
trace("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%0aINFO:+User+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 - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.actionscript.log_forging
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. 数据被写入应用程序或系统日志文件。

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: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 = (string)Session["val"];
try {
int value = Int32.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。
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.log_forging
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. 数据写入一个应用程序或系统日志文件。

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,或者通过工具自动执行,以获取重要的数据点以及数据趋势。

如果攻击者能给应用程序提供随后被逐字记录到日志文件的数据,可能会妨碍日志文件的检查,甚至基于日志数据的总结都可能是错误的。通过将日志条目分隔符所使用的字符包括到他们的数据中,攻击者可能会在日志文件中插入错误的条目信息。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]。在最糟糕是,攻击者可以在日志文件中注入代码或者其他的命令,充分利用日志处理实用程序 [2] 中的种种漏洞。

示例:以下代码从一个 CGI 脚本中接受一个由用户提交的字符串,并试图将其转换为它所代表的长整数值。如果这个数值没能被解析成整数,那么数值会随同错误消息一起存入日志,提示发生的情况。


long value = strtol(val, &endPtr, 10);
if (*endPtr != '\0')
syslog(LOG_INFO,"Illegal value = %s",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:


Illegal value=twenty-one


然而,如果攻击者提交字符串 "twenty-one\n\nINFO: User logged out=evil",则日志中会记录以下条目:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=evil


攻击者无疑能够使用同样的机制来插入任意日志条目。为了使这种类型的 log forging 攻击有效,攻击者必须首先定义有效的日志条目格式,但是这通常可以通过在目标应用程序中泄漏系统信息实现。
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cpp.log_forging
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,攻击者可能会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:下面的 Web 应用程序代码将尝试从一个 HTML 表单中读取一个值,并记录该值。


...
01 LOGAREA.
05 VALHEADER PIC X(50) VALUE 'VAL: '.
05 VAL PIC X(50).
...

EXEC CICS
WEB READ
FORMFIELD(NAME)
VALUE(VAL)
...
END-EXEC.

EXEC DLI
LOG
FROM(LOGAREA)
LENGTH(50)
END-EXEC.
...


如果用户为 "VAL" 提交字符串 "FOO",则日志中会记录以下条目:


VAL: FOO


然而,如果攻击者提交字符串 "FOO VAL: BAR",则日志中会记录以下条目:


VAL: FOO VAL: BAR


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 - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cobol.log_forging
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:下面的 Web 应用程序代码将尝试从一个 Web 表单中读取一个整数型参数。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。


<cflog file="app_log" application="No" Thread="No"
text="Failed to parse val="#Form.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:


"Information",,"02/28/01","14:50:37",,"Failed to parse val=twenty-one"


然而,如果攻击者提交字符串 "twenty-one%0a%0a%22Information%22%2C%2C%2202/28/01%22%2C%2214:53:40%22%2C%2C%22User%20logged%20out:%20badguy%22",则日志中会记录以下条目:


"Information",,"02/28/01","14:50:37",,"Failed to parse val=twenty-one"

"Information",,"02/28/01","14:53:40",,"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 - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cfml.log_forging
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的历史记录或查看事务。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: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。


func someHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request){
r.parseForm()
name := r.FormValue("name")
logout := r.FormValue("logout")
...
if (logout){
...
} else {
log.Printf("Attempt to log out: name: %s logout: %s", name, logout)
}
}


如果用户为 logout 提交字符串“twenty-one”,而且他可以创建一个名为“admin”的用户,则日志中会记录以下条目:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: twenty-one


但是,如果攻击者可以创建用户名 "admin+logout:+1+++++++++++++++++++++++",则日志中将记录以下条目:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: 1 logout: twenty-one
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.log_forging
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 - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[36] 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
[37] 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
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.log_forging
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.log("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 - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.log_forging
Abstract
标识函数会将未经验证的用户输入内容写入日志文件。攻击者可以利用这一行为来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 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,或者通过工具自动执行,以获取重要的数据点以及数据趋势。

如果攻击者能给应用程序提供随后被逐字记录到日志文件的数据,可能会妨碍日志文件的检查,甚至基于日志数据的总结都可能是错误的。通过将日志条目分隔符所使用的字符包括到他们的数据中,攻击者可能会在日志文件中插入错误的条目信息。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]。在最糟糕是,攻击者可以在日志文件中注入代码或者其他的命令,充分利用日志处理实用程序 [2] 中的种种漏洞。

例 1:以下代码从一个 CGI 脚本中接受一个由用户提交的字符串,并试图将其转换为它所代表的长整数值。如果这个数值没能被解析成整数,那么数值会随同错误消息一起存入日志,提示发生的情况。


long value = strtol(val, &endPtr, 10);
if (*endPtr != '\0')
NSLog("Illegal value = %s",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: Illegal value=twenty-one


然而,如果攻击者提交字符串 "twenty-one\n\nINFO: User logged out=evil",则日志中会记录以下条目:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=evil


攻击者无疑能够使用同样的机制来插入任意日志条目。为了使这种类型的伪造日志攻击有效,攻击者必须首先定义有效的日志条目格式,但是这通常可以通过在目标应用程序中泄漏系统信息实现。
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.objc.log_forging
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: 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。


<?php
$name =$_GET['name'];
...
$logout =$_GET['logout'];

if(is_numeric($logout))
{
...
}
else
{
trigger_error("Attempt to log out: name: $name logout: $val");
}
?>


如果用户为 logout 提交字符串“twenty-one”,而且他可以创建一个名为“admin”的用户,则日志中会记录以下条目:


PHP Notice: Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: twenty-one


但是,如果攻击者可以创建用户名 "admin+logout:+1+++++++++++++++++++++++",则日志中将记录以下条目:


PHP Notice: Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: 1 logout: twenty-one
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.log_forging
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: 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。


name = req.field('name')
...
logout = req.field('logout')

if (logout):
...
else:
logger.error("Attempt to log out: name: %s logout: %s" % (name,logout))


如果用户为 logout 提交字符串“twenty-one”,而且他可以创建一个名为“admin”的用户,则日志中会记录以下条目:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: twenty-one


但是,如果攻击者可以创建用户名 "admin+logout:+1+++++++++++++++++++++++",则日志中将记录以下条目:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: 1 logout: twenty-one
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.log_forging
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.info("Failed to parse val")
logger.info(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:


INFO: Failed to parse val
INFO: 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
INFO: 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 - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.log_forging
Abstract
标识函数会将未经验证的用户输入内容写入日志文件。攻击者可以利用这一行为来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 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,或者通过工具自动执行,以获取重要的数据点以及数据趋势。

如果攻击者能给应用程序提供随后被逐字记录到日志文件的数据,可能会妨碍日志文件的检查,甚至基于日志数据的总结都可能是错误的。通过将日志条目分隔符所使用的字符包括到他们的数据中,攻击者可能会在日志文件中插入错误的条目信息。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]。在最糟糕是,攻击者可以在日志文件中注入代码或者其他的命令,充分利用日志处理实用程序 [2] 中的种种漏洞。

示例 1:以下代码接受一个由用户提交的字符串,并试图将其转换为它所代表的整数值。如果这个数值没能被解析成整数,那么数值会随同错误消息一起存入日志,提示发生的情况。


...
let num = Int(param)
if num == nil {
NSLog("Illegal value = %@", param)
}
...


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: Illegal value = twenty-one


然而,如果攻击者提交字符串“twenty-one\n\nINFO: User logged out=evil”,则日志中会记录以下条目:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=evil


攻击者无疑能够使用同样的机制来插入任意日志条目。为了使这种类型的伪造日志攻击有效,攻击者必须首先定义有效的日志条目格式,但是这通常可以通过在目标应用程序中泄漏系统信息实现。
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.log_forging
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: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。


...
Dim Val As Variant
Dim Value As Integer
Set Val = Request.Form("val")
If IsNumeric(Val) Then
Set Value = Val
Else
App.EventLog "Failed to parse val=" & Val, 1
End If
...


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%0a+User+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 - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[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 - 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)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.vb.log_forging
Abstract
执行利用不可信赖数据源的 IMAP 命令,可能会导致 IMAP 服务器以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
当攻击者可以影响发送到 IMAP 邮件服务器的命令时,就会发生 IMAP Command Injection 漏洞。

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过执行 IMAP 命令,攻击者能够指示服务器执行恶意操作,例如发送垃圾邮件。

示例 1:以下代码使用 HTTP 请求参数来构建将发送到 IMAP 服务器的 CREATE 命令。攻击者可以利用此参数修改发送到服务器的命令,并使用 CRLF 字符注入新命令。


...
final String foldername = request.getParameter("folder");
IMAPFolder folder = (IMAPFolder) store.getFolder("INBOX");
...
folder.doCommand(new IMAPFolder.ProtocolCommand() {
@Override
public Object doCommand(IMAPProtocol imapProtocol) throws ProtocolException {
try {
imapProtocol.simpleCommand("CREATE " + foldername, null);
} catch (Exception e) {
// Handle Exception
}
return null;
}
});
...
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.java.mail_command_injection_imap
Abstract
执行利用不可信赖数据源的 POP3 命令,可能会导致 POP3 服务器以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
当攻击者可以影响发送到 POP3 邮件服务器的命令时,就会发生 POP3 Command Injection 漏洞。

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过执行 POP3 命令,攻击者能够指示服务器执行恶意操作,例如发送垃圾邮件。

示例 1:以下代码使用 HTTP 请求参数来构建将发送到 POP3 服务器的 USERPASS 命令。攻击者可以利用此参数修改发送到服务器的命令,并使用 CRLF 字符注入新命令。


...
String username = request.getParameter("username");
String password = request.getParameter("password");
...
POP3SClient pop3 = new POP3SClient(proto, false);
pop3.login(username, password)
...
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.java.mail_command_injection_pop3
Abstract
执行来自不可信数据源的 SMTP 命令可能会导致 SMTP 服务器以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
这些类型的漏洞可能会在以下情况下发生:当攻击者可以影响发送到 SMTP 邮件服务器的命令时,会发生 SMTP command injection 漏洞。

1.数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2.数据作为代表应用程序所执行命令的一个字符串或部分字符串使用。

3.通过执行 SMTP 命令,攻击者可以指示服务器执行发送垃圾邮件等恶意操作。

示例 1:以下代码使用 HTTP 请求参数来制作发送到 SMTP 服务器的 VRFY 命令。攻击者可能会使用此参数修改发送到服务器的命令并使用 CRLF 字符注入新命令。


...
c, err := smtp.Dial(x)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
user := request.FormValue("USER")
c.Verify(user)
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.golang.mail_command_injection_smtp
Abstract
从不可信赖数据源执行 SMTP 命令,可能会导致 SMTP 服务器以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
当攻击者可以影响发送到 SMTP 邮件服务器的命令时,就会发生 SMTP Command Injection 漏洞。

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过执行 SMTP 命令,攻击者能够指示服务器执行恶意操作,例如发送垃圾邮件。

示例 1:以下代码使用 HTTP 请求参数来构建将发送到 SMTP 服务器的 VRFY 命令。攻击者可以利用此参数修改发送到服务器的命令,并使用 CRLF 字符注入新命令。


...
String user = request.getParameter("user");
SMTPSSLTransport transport = new SMTPSSLTransport(session,new URLName(Utilities.getProperty("smtp.server")));
transport.connect(Utilities.getProperty("smtp.server"), username, password);
transport.simpleCommand("VRFY " + user);
...
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] 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
[39] 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
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.java.mail_command_injection_smtp
Abstract
从不可信赖数据源执行 SMTP 命令,可能会导致 SMTP 服务器以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
当攻击者可以影响发送到 SMTP 邮件服务器的命令时,就会发生 SMTP Command Injection 漏洞。

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过执行 SMTP 命令,攻击者能够指示服务器执行恶意操作,例如发送垃圾邮件。

示例 1:以下代码使用 HTTP 请求参数来构建将发送到 SMTP 服务器的 VRFY 命令。攻击者可以利用此参数修改发送到服务器的命令,并使用 CRLF 字符注入新命令。


...
user = request.GET['user']
session = smtplib.SMTP(smtp_server, smtp_tls_port)
session.ehlo()
session.starttls()
session.login(username, password)
session.docmd("VRFY", user)
...
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 88, CWE ID 93, CWE ID 147
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [17] CWE ID 077
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [16] CWE ID 077
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] 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
[39] 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
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Mail Command Injection (WASC-30)
desc.dataflow.python.mail_command_injection_smtp
Abstract
内存已分配,但永远不会释放。
Explanation
Memory leak 的产生有两个常见(有时候这两个原因会同时发生作用)原因:

- 错误状况及其他异常情况。

— 不清楚由程序的哪一部分负责释放内存。

大多数 memory leak 会导致常规软件可靠性问题,但如果攻击者能够蓄意触发 memory leak,他就可能会通过引发程序崩溃来发起一个 denial of service 攻击,或者是利用因内存低的情况 [1] 所引发的其他意外的程序行为。

例 1:如果调用 read() 后没有返回预期的字节数,以下 C 函数将会泄漏已分配的内存块的信息:


char* getBlock(int fd) {
char* buf = (char*) malloc(BLOCK_SIZE);
if (!buf) {
return NULL;
}
if (read(fd, buf, BLOCK_SIZE) != BLOCK_SIZE) {
return NULL;
}
return buf;
}
References
[1] J. Whittaker and H. Thompson How to Break Software Security Addison Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 401
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 21.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 18-4-1
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.memory_leak
Abstract
内存会得到分配但从不会被释放。
Explanation
内存泄漏有两个共通而有时部分相同的原因:

- 错误状况及其他异常情况。

- 未明确程序的哪一部份负责释放内存。

大部分内存泄漏只会导致常规软件可靠性问题,但如果攻击者可能有意触发内存泄漏,该攻击者就有可能发起 Denial of Service 攻击(通过引发程序崩溃的方式)或利用由内存较低情况 [1] 引起的其他意外程序行为。

示例 1:如果发生错误,以下 Micro Focus COBOL 程序会泄漏已分配内存块:


CALL "CBL_ALLOC_MEM"
USING mem-pointer
BY VALUE mem-size
BY VALUE flags
RETURNING status-code
END-CALL

IF status-code NOT = 0
DISPLAY "Error!"
GOBACK
ELSE
SET ADDRESS OF mem TO mem-pointer
END-IF

PERFORM write-data
IF ws-status-code NOT = 0
DISPLAY "Error!"
GOBACK
ELSE
DISPLAY "Success!"
END-IF

CALL "CBL_FREE_MEM"
USING BY VALUE mem-pointer
RETURNING status-code
END-CALL

GOBACK
.
References
[1] J. Whittaker and H. Thompson How to Break Software Security Addison Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 401
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 21.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 18-4-1
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cobol.memory_leak
Abstract
对象为成员变量分配了内存,但在其 dealloc() 方法中未能将其释放。
Explanation
Memory leak 的产生有两个常见(有时候这两个原因会同时发生作用)原因:

- 错误状况及其他异常情况。

— 不清楚由程序的哪一部分负责释放内存。

大多数 memory leak 会导致常规软件可靠性问题,但如果攻击者能够蓄意触发 memory leak,他就可能会通过引发程序崩溃来发起一个 denial of service 攻击,或者是利用因内存低的情况 [1] 所引发的其他意外的程序行为。

例 1:该 Objective-C 对象通过 init() 方法分配内存,但无法通过 deallocate() 方法将其释放,导致 memory leak:


- (void)init
{
myVar = [NSString alloc] init];
...
}

- (void)dealloc
{
[otherVar release];
}
References
[1] J. Whittaker and H. Thompson How to Break Software Security Addison Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 401
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 21.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 18-4-1
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.structural.objc.memory_leak
Abstract
该程序会调整分配的内存块的大小。如果调整大小时失败,初始块将会泄漏。
Explanation
Memory leak 的产生有两个常见(有时候这两个原因会同时发生作用)原因:

- 错误状况及其他异常情况。

— 不清楚由程序的哪一部分负责释放内存。

大多数 memory leak 会导致常规软件可靠性问题,但如果攻击者能够蓄意触发 memory leak,他就可能会通过引发程序崩溃来发起一个 denial of service 攻击,或者是利用因内存低的情况 [1] 所引发的其他意外的程序行为。

例 1:如果 realloc() 调用无法调整初始分配的大小,以下 C 函数会泄漏一块分配的内存。


char* getBlocks(int fd) {
int amt;
int request = BLOCK_SIZE;
char* buf = (char*) malloc(BLOCK_SIZE + 1);
if (!buf) {
goto ERR;
}
amt = read(fd, buf, request);
while ((amt % BLOCK_SIZE) != 0) {
if (amt < request) {
goto ERR;
}
request = request + BLOCK_SIZE;
buf = realloc(buf, request);
if (!buf) {
goto ERR;
}
amt = read(fd, buf, request);
}

return buf;

ERR:
if (buf) {
free(buf);
}
return NULL;
}
References
[1] J. Whittaker and H. Thompson How to Break Software Security Addison Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 401
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 21.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 18-4-1
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.memory_leak_reallocation
Abstract
程序将调整已分配内存块的大小。如果调整大小失败,则原始块会泄漏。
Explanation
内存泄漏有两个共通而有时部分相同的原因:

- 错误状况及其他异常情况。

- 未明确程序的哪一部份负责释放内存。

大部分内存泄漏只会导致常规软件可靠性问题,但如果攻击者可能有意触发内存泄漏,该攻击者就有可能发起 Denial of Service 攻击(通过引发程序崩溃的方式)或利用由内存较低情况 [1] 引起的其他意外程序行为。

示例 1:如果调用 realloc() 无法调整原始分配的大小,则以下 Micro Focus COBOL 程序会泄漏已分配内存块。


CALL "malloc" USING
BY VALUE mem-size
RETURNING mem-pointer
END-CALL

ADD 1000 TO mem-size

CALL "realloc" USING
BY VALUE mem-pointer
BY VALUE mem-size
RETURNING mem-pointer
END-CALL

IF mem-pointer <> null
CALL "free" USING
BY VALUE mem-pointer
END-CALL
END-IF
References
[1] J. Whittaker and H. Thompson How to Break Software Security Addison Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 401
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 21.3
[10] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 18-4-1
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cobol.memory_leak_reallocation
Abstract
程序可能会间接引用一个 null 指针,因为它不会检查函数的返回值,而该值可能为 null
Explanation
几乎每一个对软件系统的严重攻击都是从违反程序员的假设开始的。攻击后,程序员的假设看起来既脆弱又拙劣,但攻击前,许多程序员会在午休时间为自己的种种假设做很好的辩护。

在代码中很容易发现的两个可疑的假设是:一是这个函数调用不可能出错;二是即使出错了,也不会对系统造成什么重要影响。当程序员忽略函数返回值时,就暗示着自己是基于上述任一假设来执行操作。
示例 1: 以下代码不会在调用成员函数 Equals() 之前检查 Item 属性返回的字符串是否为 null,从而可能会导致 null dereference。


string itemName = request.Item(ITEM_NAME);
if (itemName.Equals(IMPORTANT_ITEM)) {
...
}
...


对于这种编码错误的一贯辩解是:

“我知道请求的值肯定会存在,因为....如果不存在,程序就无法执行所需的行为,因此是处理该错误还是允许程序自行崩溃而间接引用 null 也就无关紧要了。”

但是,攻击者对于发现程序中的意外情况十分在行,特别是发生异常时。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 253, CWE ID 690
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.dotnet.missing_check_against_null
Abstract
程序会间接引用 null 指针,因为它不会对函数的返回值进行检查,而该函数有可能返回 null
Explanation
几乎每一个对软件系统的严重攻击都是从违反程序员的假设开始的。攻击后,程序员的假设看起来既脆弱又拙劣,但攻击前,许多程序员会在午休时间为自己的种种假设做很好的辩护。

在代码中很容易发现的两个可疑的假设是:一是这个函数调用不可能出错;二是即使出错了,也不会对系统造成什么重要影响。当程序员忽略函数返回值时,就暗示着自己是基于上述任一假设来执行操作。
例 1:以下代码在使用由 malloc() 返回的指针之前,并没有检查内存是否分配成功。


buf = (char*) malloc(req_size);
strncpy(buf, xfer, req_size);


对于这种编码错误的一贯辩解是:

“如果我的程序耗尽了所有内存,则会失败。无论是在程序尝试间接引用 null 指针时处理相关错误,还是允许程序自行崩溃并出现分段故障,都无关紧要。”

但是这个解释忽略了以下三个重要的因素:

— 根据应用程序的类型和大小,可能会释放由其他程序使用的内存,从而使程序继续运行。

- 程序不可能执行正常退出(如果需要)。如果程序执行原子操作,则会使系统处于不一致的状态。

— 程序员失去了记下诊断信息的机会。对 malloc() 的调用失败是不是因为 req_size 太大,还是因为在同一时刻处理的请求太多。或者是由于已累计超时的 memory leak 引起的。如果不对错误进行处理,就不会知道是什么原因。
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 253, CWE ID 690
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.missing_check_against_null
Abstract
程序会间接引用 null 指针,因为它不会对函数的返回值进行检查,而该函数有可能返回 null
Explanation
几乎每一个对软件系统的严重攻击都是从违反程序员的假设开始的。攻击后,程序员的假设看起来既脆弱又拙劣,但攻击前,许多程序员会在午休时间为自己的种种假设做很好的辩护。

在代码中很容易发现的两个可疑的假设是:一是这个函数调用不可能出错;二是即使出错了,也不会对系统造成什么重要影响。当程序员忽略函数返回值时,就暗示着自己是基于上述任一假设来执行操作。

示例 1: 以下代码在调用成员函数 compareTo() 之前,不会检查 getParameter() 返回的字符串是否为 null,从而可能会造成 null dereference。


String itemName = request.getParameter(ITEM_NAME);
if (itemName.compareTo(IMPORTANT_ITEM)) {
...
}
...
例 2:。以下代码显示了这样一个例子,一个系统属性被设置为了 null,随后间接引用它的程序员错误地认为该属性值是已定义的。


System.clearProperty("os.name");
...
String os = System.getProperty("os.name");
if (os.equalsIgnoreCase("Windows 95") )
System.out.println("Not supported");


对于这种编码错误的一贯辩解是:

“我知道请求的值肯定会存在,因为....如果不存在,程序就无法执行所需的行为,因此是处理该错误还是允许程序自行崩溃而间接引用 null 也就无关紧要了。”

但是,攻击者对于发现程序中的意外情况十分在行,特别是发生异常时。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 253, CWE ID 690
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.missing_check_against_null
Abstract
程序可能会间接引用一个 null 指针,从而引发 NullException
Explanation
null 指针错误通常是由于违反一个或多个程序员假设而造成的。

大多数 null 指针问题会导致一般软件可靠性问题,但如果攻击者可能有意触发 null 指针间接引用,他们可以使用生成的异常绕过安全逻辑或使应用程序显示调试信息,这些信息在规划后续攻击时十分有用。

示例 1:在以下代码中,程序员假定系统始终会定义一个名为“cmd”的属性。如果攻击者可以控制程序的环境,从而使“cmd”处于未定义状态,则它就会在尝试调用 Trim() 方法时抛出一个 null 指针异常。


string cmd = null;
...
cmd = Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("cmd");
cmd = cmd.Trim();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[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 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.dotnet.null_dereference
Abstract
该程序可能会间接引用一个 null 指针,从而造成分段故障。
Explanation
如果不符合程序员的一个或多个假设,则通常会出现 null 指针异常。此问题至少有三种类型:check-after-dereference、dereference-after-check 和 dereference-after-store。如果程序在检查可能为 null 的指针是否为 null 之前间接引用该指针,则会发生 check-after-dereference 错误。如果程序明确检查过 null,并确定该指针为 null,但仍继续间接引用该指针,则会出现 dereference-after-check 错误。此类错误通常是由于错别字或程序员疏忽造成的。如果程序明确将指针设置为 null,但稍后却间接引用该指针,则将出现 dereference-after-store 错误。此错误通常是因为程序员在声明变量时将该变量初始化为 null 所致。

大多数 null 指针问题会导致一般软件可靠性问题,但如果攻击者可能有意触发 null 指针间接引用,他们可以使用生成的异常绕过安全逻辑以发动拒绝服务攻击,或使应用程序显示调试信息,这些信息在规划后续攻击时十分有用。

示例 1:在下列代码中,程序员假设变量 ptr 不是 NULL。当程序员间接引用该指针时,这个假设就会清晰的体现出来。当程序员检查 ptr 是否为 NULL 时,就会与该假设发生矛盾。当在 if 语句中检查时,如果 ptr 可以为 NULL,则在其间接引用时也将为 NULL,并引起 segmentation fault。


ptr->field = val;
...
if (ptr != NULL) {
...
}
示例 2:在下列代码中,程序员会确认变量 ptrNULL,然后错误地对其进行间接引用。如果在 if 语句中检查 ptr 时其为 NULL,则会发生 null dereference,从而导致分段故障。


if (ptr == null) {
ptr->field = val;
...
}
示例 3:在下列代码中,程序员忘记了字符串 '\0' 实际上为 0 还是 NULL,从而间接引用 null 指针并引发分段故障。


if (ptr == '\0') {
*ptr = val;
...
}
示例 4:在下列代码中,程序员会将变量 ptr 明确设置为 NULL。之后,程序员会间接引用 ptr,而未检查对象是否为 null 值。


*ptr = NULL;
...
ptr->field = val;
...
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[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 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.null_dereference
Abstract
程序可能会间接引用一个 null 指针,从而引发 NullPointerException
Explanation
null 指针错误通常是由于违反一个或多个程序员假设而造成的。

大多数 null 指针问题会导致一般软件可靠性问题,但如果攻击者可能有意触发 null 指针间接引用,他们可以使用生成的异常绕过安全逻辑或使应用程序显示调试信息,这些信息在规划后续攻击时十分有用。

示例:在以下代码中,程序员假定系统始终会定义一个名为“cmd”的属性。如果攻击者可以控制程序的环境,从而使“cmd”处于未定义状态,则它就会在尝试调用 trim() 方法时抛出一个 null 指针异常。


String val = null;
...
cmd = System.getProperty("cmd");
if (cmd)
val = util.translateCommand(cmd);
...
cmd = val.trim();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[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 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.null_dereference