531 个项目已找到

弱点

Access Control: LDAP

Abstract

在没有适当 access control 的情况下，执行一个包含用户控制值的 LDAP 声明，这可以让攻击者访问未授权的目录条目。

Explanation

Database access control 错误在以下情况下发生：

1. 数据从一个不可信赖的数据源进入程序。

2. 数据用于在 LDAP 查询中指定一个数据值。
示例 1：当前已验证用户的雇员 ID 会随着各个请求一起，通过客户端界面自动提交。下面的代码会在使用雇员姓名建立 LDAP 查询之前适当地使用允许列表对该姓名进行验证。该验证避免了 LDAP injection 漏洞，但仍可能留下代码漏洞。


static string AllowlistVerify(string name) {
    Regex pattern = new Regex(@"^[a-zA-Z\-\.']+$");
    if (pattern.IsMatch(name)) {
        return name;
    }
    return null;
}

...
string verifiedName = AllowlistVerify(managerName.Text.trim());
if(verifiedName != null) {
    DirectorySearcher src = new DirectorySearcher("(manager=" + verifiedName + ")");
    src.SearchRoot = de;
    src.SearchScope = SearchScope.Subtree;

    foreach(SearchResult res in src.FindAll()) {
        ...
    }
}

问题在于开发人员未能考虑到若攻击者提供可供选择的 empName 值，会发生什么情况。尽管该界面会自动提交当前用户的雇员 ID，但是攻击者也可能在恶意请求中提交其他值替换当前的 ID。因为本例子中的代码是在匿名绑定情况下执行查询，不管当前已验证用户的身份如何，它都会将有效的雇员 ID 返回至目录入口。

References

[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3

[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1

[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 639

[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [24] CWE ID 863

[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-001084, CCI-002165

[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC

[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation

[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)

[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement

[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control

[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference

[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References

[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References

[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control

[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control

[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.2 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 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)

[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication

[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization

[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-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 6.5.4

[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8

[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8

[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8

[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8

[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 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 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 863

[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3480.1 CAT II

[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3480.1 CAT I

[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3480.1 CAT I

[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3480.1 CAT I

[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3480.1 CAT I

[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3480.1 CAT I

[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3480.1 CAT I

[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II

[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II

[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II

[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II

[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II

[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II

[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II

[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II

[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II

[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II

[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II

[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II

[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II

[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II

[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)

[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization

desc.dataflow.dotnet.access_control_ldap

Abstract

在没有适当 access control 的情况下，执行一个包含用户控制值的 LDAP 声明，这可以让攻击者访问未授权的目录条目。

Explanation

Database access control 错误在以下情况下发生：

1. 数据从一个不可信赖的数据源进入程序。

2. 数据用于在 LDAP 查询中指定一个数据值。
示例 1：以下代码会在使用雇员名称创建 LDAP 查询之前，使用一个允许列表来验证雇员名称的有效性。该验证避免了 LDAP injection 漏洞，但仍可能留下代码漏洞。


char* allowlist_verify(char* name) {
    const char *error;
    int errOffset;
    char* regex = "^[a-zA-Z\\-\\.']+$";
    pcre* re = pcre_compile(regex, 0, &err, &errOffset, NULL);
    int rc = pcre_exec(re, NULL, name, strlen(name), 0, 0, NULL, 0);
    if (rc == 1)
        return name;
    return NULL;
}
...
fgets(managerName, sizeof(managerName), socket);
char* verified_name = allowlist_verify(managerName);
if(verified_name != NULL) {
    snprintf(filter, sizeof(filter), "(manager=%s)", verified_name);
    if ( ( rc = ldap_search_ext_s( ld, FIND_DN, LDAP_SCOPE_BASE,
            filter, NULL, 0, NULL, NULL, LDAP_NO_LIMIT,
            LDAP_NO_LIMIT, &result ) ) == LDAP_SUCCESS ) {
    ...
    }
}

问题在于开发人员未能考虑到若攻击者提供可供选择的 username 值，会发生什么情况。因为本例子中的代码是在匿名绑定情况下执行查询，不管当前已验证用户的身份如何，它都会将有效的雇员 ID 返回至目录入口。