界: Input Validation and Representation

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

175 个项目已找到
弱点
Abstract
在 Cookies 中包含未验证的数据会引发 HTTP 响应头文件操作攻击,并可能导致 cache-poisoning、cross-site scripting、cross-user defacement、page hijacking、cookie manipulation 或 open redirect。
Explanation
以下情况中会出现 Cookie Manipulation 漏洞:

1. 数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入 Web 应用程序,最常见的是 HTTP 请求。

2. 数据包含在一个 HTTP Cookie 中,该 Cookie 未经验证就发送给了 Web 用户。

如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,Cookie Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。从本质上看,这些漏洞是显而易见的:攻击者可将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,且该应用程序将这些数据包含在 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:当与类似跨站请求伪造的攻击相结合时,攻击者就可以篡改、添加、甚至覆盖合法用户的 cookie。

作为 HTTP 响应头文件,Cookie Manipulation 攻击也可导致其他类型的攻击,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
其中最常见的一种 Header Manipulation 攻击是 HTTP Response Splitting。为了成功地实施 HTTP Response Splitting 盗取,应用程序必须允许将那些包含 CR(回车,由 %0d 或 \r 指定)和 LF(换行,由 %0a 或 \n 指定)的字符输入到头文件中。攻击者利用这些字符不仅可以控制应用程序要发送的响应剩余头文件和正文,还可以创建完全受其控制的其他响应。

如今的许多现代应用程序服务器可以防止 HTTP 头文件感染恶意字符。例如,如果尝试使用被禁用的字符设置头文件,最新版本的 Apache Tomcat 会抛出 IllegalArgumentException。如果您的应用程序服务器能够防止设置带有换行符的头文件,则其具备对 HTTP Response Splitting 的防御能力。然而,单纯地过滤换行符可能无法保证应用程序不受 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 的攻击,因此必须在设置带有用户输入的 HTTP 头文件时采取措施。

示例:下列代码片段会从 HTTP 请求中读取网络日志项的作者名字 author,并将其置于一个 HTTP 响应的 cookie 头文件中。


...
author = request->get_form_field( 'author' ).
response->set_cookie( name = 'author' value = author ).
...


假设在请求中提交了一个字符串,该字符串由标准的字母数字字符组成,如“Jane Smith”,那么包含该 Cookie 的 HTTP 响应可能表现为以下形式:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


然而,因为 cookie 值来源于未经校验的用户输入,所以仅当提交给 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字符时,响应才会保留这种形式。如果攻击者提交的是一个恶意字符串,比如“Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...”,那么 HTTP 响应就会被分割成以下形式的两个响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


显然,第二个响应已完全由攻击者控制,攻击者可以用任何所需标头和正文内容构建该响应。攻击者可以构建任意 HTTP 响应,从而发起多种形式的攻击,包括:cross-user defacement、web and browser cache poisoning、cross-site scripting 和 page hijacking。

Cross-User Defacement:攻击者可以向一个易受攻击的服务器发出一个请求,导致服务器创建两个响应,其中第二个响应可能会被曲解为对其他请求的响应,而这一请求很可能是与服务器共享相同 TCP 连接的另一用户发出的。这种攻击可以通过以下方式实现:攻击者诱骗用户,让他们自己提交恶意请求;或在远程情况下,攻击者与用户共享同一个连接到服务器(如共享代理服务器)的 TCP 连接。最理想的情况是,攻击者通过这种方式使用户相信自己的应用程序已经遭受了黑客攻击,进而对应用程序的安全性失去信心。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能提供经特殊技术处理的内容,这些内容旨在模仿应用程序的执行方式,但会重定向用户的私人信息(如帐号和密码),将这些信息发送给攻击者。

缓存中毒: 如果多用户 Web 缓存或者单用户浏览器缓存将恶意构建的响应缓存起来,该响应的破坏力会更大。如果响应缓存在共享的 Web 缓存(如在代理服务器中常见的缓存)中,那么使用该缓存的所有用户都会不断收到恶意内容,直到清除该缓存项为止。同样,如果响应缓存在单个用户的浏览器中,那么在清除该缓存项以前,该用户会不断收到恶意内容。然而,影响仅局限于本地浏览器的用户。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻击者控制了应用程序传送的响应,就可以选择多种恶意内容并将其传播给用户。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常见的攻击形式,这种攻击在响应中包含了恶意的 JavaScript 或其他代码,并在用户的浏览器中执行。基于 XSS 的攻击手段花样百出,几乎是无穷无尽的,但通常它们都会包含传输给攻击者的私有数据(如 Cookie 或者其他会话信息)。在攻击者的控制下,指引受害者进入恶意的网络内容;或者利用易受攻击的站点,对用户的机器进行其他恶意操作。对于易受攻击的应用程序用户,最常见且最危险的攻击就是使用 JavaScript 将会话和身份验证信息返回给攻击者,而后攻击者就可以完全控制受害者的帐号了。

Page Hijacking:除了利用一个易受攻击的应用程序向用户传输恶意内容,还可以利用相同的根漏洞,将服务器生成的供用户使用的敏感内容重定向,转而供攻击者使用。攻击者通过提交一个会导致两个响应的请求,即服务器做出的预期响应和攻击者创建的响应,致使某个中间节点(如共享的代理服务器)误导服务器所生成的响应,将本来应传送给用户的响应错误地传给攻击者。因为攻击者创建的请求产生了两个响应,第一个被解析为针对攻击者请求做出的响应,第二个则被忽略。当用户通过同一 TCP 连接发出合法请求时,攻击者的请求已经在此处等候,并被解析为针对受害者这一请求的响应。这时,攻击者将第二个请求发送给服务器,代理服务器利用针对受害者(用户)的、由该服务器产生的这一请求对服务器做出响应,因此,针对受害者的这一响应中会包含所有头文件或正文中的敏感信息。

Open Redirect:如果允许未验证的输入来控制重定向机制所使用的 URL,可能会有利于攻击者发动钓鱼攻击。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.abap.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookie 中包含未经验证的数据会引发 HTTP Response Header Manipulation 攻击,并可能导致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect。
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation 漏洞会在以下情况下发生:

1.数据通过不可信数据源进入 Web 应用程序,最常见的是通过 HTTP 请求。



2.数据包含在未经验证就发送给 Web 用户的 HTTP Cookie 中。



如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,Cookie Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。从本质上看,这些漏洞是显而易见的:攻击者可将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,然后该应用程序将这些数据包含在 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:当与 Cross-Site Request Forgery 等类似攻击相结合时,攻击者可能会篡改、添加甚至覆盖合法用户的 Cookie。

作为 HTTP 响应标头,Cookie Manipulation 攻击也可导致其他类型的攻击,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
其中最常见的一种 Header Manipulation 攻击是 HTTP Response Splitting。为了成功实施 HTTP Response Splitting 漏洞,该应用程序必须允许将包含 CR(回车符,也可以由 %0d 或 \r 指定)和 LF(换行符,也可以由 %0a 或 \n 指定)字符的输入包含在标头中。攻击者不仅可以利用这些字符控制应用程序要发送的响应的剩余标头和正文,还可以创建完全受其控制的其他响应。

如今的许多现代应用程序服务器可以防止 HTTP 标头中注入恶意字符。例如,如果尝试使用被禁用的字符设置标头,最新版本的 Apache Tomcat 会抛出 IllegalArgumentException。如果您的应用程序服务器能够防止设置带有换行符的标头,则其具备对 HTTP Response Splitting 的防御能力。然而,单纯地过滤换行符可能无法保证应用程序不受 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 的攻击,因此在设置带有用户输入的 HTTP 标头时仍需小心谨慎。

示例 1:以下代码片段会从 HTTP 请求中读取网络日志项的作者名字 author,并将其置于一个 HTTP 响应的 Cookie 标头中。


...
Cookie cookie = new Cookie('author', author, '/', -1, false);
ApexPages.currentPage().setCookies(new Cookie[] {cookie});
...


假设在请求中提交了一个字符串,该字符串由标准的字母数字字符组成,如“Jane Smith”,那么包含该 Cookie 的 HTTP 响应可能表现为以下形式:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


然而,因为 Cookie 值来源于未经校验的用户输入,所以仅当提交给 author 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字符时,响应才会保留这种形式。如果攻击者提交的是一个恶意字符串,比如“Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...”,那么 HTTP 响应将被分割成以下形式的两个响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


显然,第二个响应已完全由攻击者控制,攻击者可以用任何所需标头和正文内容构建该响应。攻击者可以构建任意 HTTP 响应,从而发起多种形式的攻击,包括:cross-user defacement、web and browser cache poisoning、cross-site scripting 和 page hijacking。

Cross-User Defacement:攻击者可以向一个易受攻击的服务器发出一个请求,该请求将导致服务器创建两个响应,其中第二个响应可能会被曲解为对其他请求的响应,而这一请求很可能是与服务器共享相同 TCP 连接的另一用户发出的。这种攻击可以通过以下方式实现:攻击者诱骗用户,让他们自己提交恶意请求;或在远程情况下,攻击者与用户共享同一个连接到服务器(如共享代理服务器)的 TCP 连接。最理想的情况是,攻击者通过这种方式使用户相信自己的应用程序已经遭受了黑客攻击,进而对应用程序的安全性失去信心。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能提供经特殊技术处理的内容,这些内容旨在模仿应用程序的执行方式,但会重定向用户的私人信息(如帐号和密码),将这些信息发送给攻击者。

Cache Poisoning:如果多用户 Web 缓存或者单用户浏览器缓存将恶意构建的响应缓存起来,该响应的破坏力会更大。如果响应缓存在共享的 Web 缓存(如在代理服务器中常见的缓存)中,那么使用该缓存的所有用户都会不断收到恶意内容,直到清除该缓存项为止。同样,如果响应缓存在单个用户的浏览器中,那么在清除该缓存项以前,该用户会不断收到恶意内容。然而,影响将仅局限于本地浏览器的用户。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻击者控制了应用程序传送的响应,就可以选择多种恶意内容并将其传播给用户。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常见的攻击形式,这种攻击在响应中包含了恶意的 JavaScript 或其他代码,并在用户的浏览器中执行。基于 XSS 的攻击手段花样百出,几乎是无穷无尽的,但通常它们都会包含传输给攻击者的私有数据(如 Cookie 或者其他会话信息)。在攻击者的控制下,指引受害者进入恶意的网络内容;或者利用易受攻击的站点,对用户的机器进行其他恶意操作。对于易受攻击的应用程序用户,最常见且最危险的攻击就是使用 JavaScript 将会话和身份验证信息返回给攻击者,而后攻击者就可以完全控制受害者的帐号了。

Page Hijacking:除了利用一个易受攻击的应用程序向用户传输恶意内容,还可以利用相同的根漏洞,将服务器生成的供用户使用的敏感内容重定向,转而供攻击者使用。攻击者通过提交一个会产生两个响应的请求,即服务器做出的预期响应和攻击者创建的响应,致使某个中间节点(如共享的代理服务器)误导服务器所生成的响应,将本来应传送给用户的响应错误地传给攻击者。因为攻击者创建的请求产生了两个响应,第一个被解析为针对攻击者请求做出的响应,第二个则被忽略。当用户通过同一 TCP 连接发出合法请求时,攻击者的请求已经在此处等候,并被解析为针对受害者这一请求的响应。这时,攻击者将第二个请求发送给服务器,代理服务器利用针对受害者(用户)的、由该服务器产生的这一请求对服务器做出响应。因此,针对受害者的这一响应中会包含所有标头或正文中的敏感信息。

Open Redirect:如果允许未验证的输入控制重定向机制所使用的 URL,可能会有利于攻击者发动钓鱼攻击。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.apex.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookies 中包含未验证的数据会引发 HTTP 响应头文件操作攻击,并可能导致 cache-poisoning、cross-site scripting、cross-user defacement、page hijacking、cookie manipulation 或 open redirect。
Explanation
以下情况中会出现 Cookie Manipulation 漏洞:

1. 数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入 Web 应用程序,最常见的是 HTTP 请求。

2. 数据包含在一个 HTTP Cookie 中,该 Cookie 未经验证就发送给了 Web 用户。

如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,Cookie Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。从本质上看,这些漏洞是显而易见的:攻击者可将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,然后该应用程序将这些数据包含在 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:当与类似跨站请求伪造的攻击相结合时,攻击者就可以篡改、添加、甚至覆盖合法用户的 cookie。

作为 HTTP 响应头文件,Cookie Manipulation 攻击也可导致其他类型的攻击,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
其中最常见的一种 Header Manipulation 攻击是 HTTP Response Splitting。为了成功地实施 HTTP Response Splitting 盗取,应用程序必须允许将那些包含 CR(回车,由 %0d 或 \r 指定)和 LF(换行,由 %0a 或 \n 指定)的字符输入到头文件中。攻击者利用这些字符不仅可以控制应用程序要发送的响应剩余头文件和正文,还可以创建完全受其控制的其他响应。

如今的许多现代应用程序服务器可以防止 HTTP 头文件感染恶意字符。例如,如果尝试使用被禁用的字符设置头文件,最新版本的 Apache Tomcat 会抛出 IllegalArgumentException。如果您的应用程序服务器能够防止设置带有换行符的头文件,则其具备对 HTTP Response Splitting 的防御能力。然而,单纯地过滤换行符可能无法保证应用程序不受 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 的攻击,因此必须在设置带有用户输入的 HTTP 头文件时采取措施。

示例:以下代码片段会从 HTTP 请求中读取网络日志项的作者名字 author,并将其置于一个 HTTP 响应的 Cookie 头文件中。


protected System.Web.UI.WebControls.TextBox Author;
...
string author = Author.Text;
Cookie cookie = new Cookie("author", author);
...


假设在请求中提交了一个字符串,该字符串由标准的字母数字字符组成,如“Jane Smith”,那么包含该 Cookie 的 HTTP 响应可能表现为以下形式:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


然而,因为 cookie 值来源于未经校验的用户输入,所以仅当提交给 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字符时,响应才会保留这种形式。如果攻击者提交的是一个恶意字符串,比如“Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...”,那么 HTTP 响应就会被分割成以下形式的两个响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


显然,第二个响应已完全由攻击者控制,攻击者可以用任何所需标头和正文内容构建该响应。攻击者可以构建任意 HTTP 响应,从而发起多种形式的攻击,包括:cross-user defacement、web and browser cache poisoning、cross-site scripting 和 page hijacking。

Cross-User Defacement:攻击者可以向一个易受攻击的服务器发出一个请求,导致服务器创建两个响应,其中第二个响应可能会被曲解为对其他请求的响应,而这一请求很可能是与服务器共享相同 TCP 连接的另一用户发出的。这种攻击可以通过以下方式实现:攻击者诱骗用户,让他们自己提交恶意请求;或在远程情况下,攻击者与用户共享同一个连接到服务器(如共享代理服务器)的 TCP 连接。最理想的情况是,攻击者通过这种方式使用户相信自己的应用程序已经遭受了黑客攻击,进而对应用程序的安全性失去信心。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能提供经特殊技术处理的内容,这些内容旨在模仿应用程序的执行方式,但会重定向用户的私人信息(如帐号和密码),将这些信息发送给攻击者。

缓存中毒:如果多用户 Web 缓存或者单用户浏览器缓存将恶意构建的响应缓存起来,该响应的破坏力会更大。如果响应缓存在共享的 Web 缓存(如在代理服务器中常见的缓存)中,那么使用该缓存的所有用户都会不断收到恶意内容,直到清除该缓存项为止。同样,如果响应缓存在单个用户的浏览器中,那么在清除该缓存项以前,该用户会不断收到恶意内容。然而,影响仅局限于本地浏览器的用户。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻击者控制了应用程序传送的响应,就可以选择多种恶意内容并将其传播给用户。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常见的攻击形式,这种攻击在响应中包含了恶意的 JavaScript 或其他代码,并在用户的浏览器中执行。基于 XSS 的攻击手段花样百出,几乎是无穷无尽的,但通常它们都会包含传输给攻击者的私有数据(如 Cookie 或者其他会话信息)。在攻击者的控制下,指引受害者进入恶意的网络内容;或者利用易受攻击的站点,对用户的机器进行其他恶意操作。对于易受攻击的应用程序用户,最常见且最危险的攻击就是使用 JavaScript 将会话和身份验证信息返回给攻击者,而后攻击者就可以完全控制受害者的帐号了。

Page Hijacking:除了利用一个易受攻击的应用程序向用户传输恶意内容,还可以利用相同的根漏洞,将服务器生成的供用户使用的敏感内容重定向,转而供攻击者使用。攻击者通过提交一个会导致两个响应的请求,即服务器做出的预期响应和攻击者创建的响应,致使某个中间节点(如共享的代理服务器)误导服务器所生成的响应,将本来应传送给用户的响应错误地传给攻击者。因为攻击者创建的请求产生了两个响应,第一个被解析为针对攻击者请求做出的响应,第二个则被忽略。当用户通过同一 TCP 连接发出合法请求时,攻击者的请求已经在此处等候,并被解析为针对受害者这一请求的响应。这时,攻击者将第二个请求发送给服务器,代理服务器利用针对受害者(用户)的、由该服务器产生的这一请求对服务器做出响应,因此,针对受害者的这一响应中会包含所有头文件或正文中的敏感信息。

Open Redirect:如果允许未验证的输入来控制重定向机制所使用的 URL,可能会有利于攻击者发动钓鱼攻击。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.dotnet.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookies 中包含未验证的数据会引发 HTTP 响应头文件操作攻击,并可能导致 cache-poisoning、cross-site scripting、cross-user defacement、page hijacking、cookie manipulation 或 open redirect。
Explanation
以下情况中会出现 Cookie Manipulation 漏洞:

1. 数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入 Web 应用程序,最常见的是 HTTP 请求。

2. 数据包含在一个 HTTP Cookie 中,该 Cookie 未经验证就发送给了 Web 用户。

如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,Cookie Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。从本质上看,这些漏洞是显而易见的:攻击者可将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,且该应用程序将这些数据包含在 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:当与类似跨站请求伪造的攻击相结合时,攻击者就可以篡改、添加、甚至覆盖合法用户的 cookie。

作为 HTTP 响应头文件,Cookie Manipulation 攻击也可导致其他类型的攻击,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
其中最常见的一种 Header Manipulation 攻击是 HTTP Response Splitting。为了成功地实施 HTTP Response Splitting 盗取,应用程序必须允许将那些包含 CR(回车,由 %0d 或 \r 指定)和 LF(换行,由 %0a 或 \n 指定)的字符输入到头文件中。攻击者利用这些字符不仅可以控制应用程序要发送的响应剩余头文件和正文,还可以创建完全受其控制的其他响应。

如今的许多现代应用程序服务器可以防止 HTTP 头文件感染恶意字符。例如,如果尝试使用被禁用的字符设置头文件,最新版本的 Apache Tomcat 会抛出 IllegalArgumentException。如果您的应用程序服务器能够防止设置带有换行符的头文件,则其具备对 HTTP Response Splitting 的防御能力。然而,单纯地过滤换行符可能无法保证应用程序不受 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 的攻击,因此必须在设置带有用户输入的 HTTP 头文件时采取措施。

示例:下列代码片段会从 HTTP 请求中读取网络日志项的作者名字 author,并将其置于一个 HTTP 响应的 cookie 头文件中。


<cfcookie name = "author"
value = "#Form.author#"
expires = "NOW">


假设在请求中提交了一个字符串,该字符串由标准的字母数字字符组成,如“Jane Smith”,那么包含该 Cookie 的 HTTP 响应可能表现为以下形式:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


然而,因为 cookie 值来源于未经校验的用户输入,所以仅当提交给 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字符时,响应才会保留这种形式。如果攻击者提交的是一个恶意字符串,比如 "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n......",那么 HTTP 响应就会被分割成以下形式的两个响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


显然,第二个响应已完全由攻击者控制,攻击者可以用任何所需标头和正文内容构建该响应。攻击者可以构建任意 HTTP 响应,从而发起多种形式的攻击,包括:cross-user defacement、web and browser cache poisoning、cross-site scripting 和 page hijacking。

Cross-User Defacement:攻击者可以向一个易受攻击的服务器发出一个请求,导致服务器创建两个响应,其中第二个响应可能会被曲解为对其他请求的响应,而这一请求很可能是与服务器共享相同 TCP 连接的另一用户发出的。这种攻击可以通过以下方式实现:攻击者诱骗用户,让他们自己提交恶意请求;或在远程情况下,攻击者与用户共享同一个连接到服务器(如共享代理服务器)的 TCP 连接。最理想的情况是,攻击者通过这种方式使用户相信自己的应用程序已经遭受了黑客攻击,进而对应用程序的安全性失去信心。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能提供经特殊技术处理的内容,这些内容旨在模仿应用程序的执行方式,但会重定向用户的私人信息(如帐号和密码),将这些信息发送给攻击者。

Cache Poisoning: 如果多用户 Web 缓存或者单用户浏览器缓存将恶意构建的响应缓存起来,该响应的破坏力会更大。如果响应缓存在共享的 Web 缓存(如在代理服务器中常见的缓存)中,那么使用该缓存的所有用户都会不断收到恶意内容,直到清除该缓存项为止。同样,如果响应缓存在单个用户的浏览器中,那么在清除该缓存项以前,该用户会不断收到恶意内容。然而,影响仅局限于本地浏览器的用户。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻击者控制了应用程序传送的响应,就可以选择多种恶意内容并将其传播给用户。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常见的攻击形式,这种攻击在响应中包含了恶意的 JavaScript 或其他代码,并在用户的浏览器中执行。基于 XSS 的攻击手段花样百出,几乎是无穷无尽的,但通常它们都会包含传输给攻击者的私有数据(如 Cookie 或者其他会话信息)。在攻击者的控制下,指引受害者进入恶意的网络内容;或者利用易受攻击的站点,对用户的机器进行其他恶意操作。对于易受攻击的应用程序用户,最常见且最危险的攻击就是使用 JavaScript 将会话和身份验证信息返回给攻击者,而后攻击者就可以完全控制受害者的帐号了。

Page Hijacking:除了利用一个易受攻击的应用程序向用户传输恶意内容,还可以利用相同的根漏洞,将服务器生成的供用户使用的敏感内容重定向,转而供攻击者使用。攻击者通过提交一个会导致两个响应的请求,即服务器做出的预期响应和攻击者创建的响应,致使某个中间节点(如共享的代理服务器)误导服务器所生成的响应,将本来应传送给用户的响应错误地传给攻击者。因为攻击者创建的请求产生了两个响应,第一个被解析为针对攻击者请求做出的响应,第二个则被忽略。当用户通过同一 TCP 连接发出合法请求时,攻击者的请求已经在此处等候,并被解析为针对受害者这一请求的响应。这时,攻击者将第二个请求发送给服务器,代理服务器利用针对受害者(用户)的、由该服务器产生的这一请求对服务器做出响应,因此,针对受害者的这一响应中会包含所有头文件或正文中的敏感信息。

Open Redirect:如果允许未验证的输入来控制重定向机制所使用的 URL,可能会有利于攻击者发动钓鱼攻击。
References
[1] Amit Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] Diabolic Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.cfml.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookie 中包含未经验证的数据会引发 HTTP Response Header Manipulation 攻击,并可能导致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect。
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation 漏洞会在以下情况下发生:

1.数据通过不可信来源进入 Web 应用程序,最常见的是 HTTP 请求。

2.数据包含在未经验证就发送给 Web 用户的 HTTP Cookie 中。

如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,Cookie Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。从本质上看,这些漏洞是显而易见的:攻击者可将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,然后该应用程序将这些数据包含在 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:当与类似 Cross-Site Request Forgery 的攻击相结合时,攻击者就可以篡改、添加甚至覆盖合法用户的 Cookie。

作为 HTTP 响应标头,Cookie Manipulation 攻击也可导致其他类型的攻击,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
其中最常见的一种 Header Manipulation 攻击是 HTTP Response Splitting。为了成功实施 HTTP Response Splitting 漏洞,该应用程序必须允许将包含 CR(回车符,也可以由 %0d 或 \r 指定)和 LF(换行符,也可以由 %0a 或 \n 指定)字符的输入包含在标头中。攻击者不仅可以利用这些字符控制应用程序要发送的响应的剩余标头和正文,还可以创建完全受其控制的其他响应。

如今的许多现代应用程序服务器可以防止 HTTP 标头感染恶意字符。例如,如果尝试使用被禁用的字符设置标头,最新版本的 Apache Tomcat 会抛出 IllegalArgumentException。如果您的应用程序服务器能够防止设置带有换行符的标头,则其具备对 HTTP Response Splitting 的防御能力。然而,单纯地过滤换行符可能无法保证应用程序不受 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 的攻击,因此在设置带有用户输入的 HTTP 标头时仍需小心谨慎。

示例:以下代码片段会从 HTTP 请求中读取网络日志项的作者名字 author,并将其置于一个 HTTP 响应的 Cookie 标头中。


...
author := request.FormValue("AUTHOR_PARAM")
cookie := http.Cookie{
Name: "author",
Value: author,
Domain: "www.example.com",
}
http.SetCookie(w, &cookie)
...


假设在请求中提交了一个字符串,该字符串由标准的字母数字字符组成,如“Jane Smith”,那么包含该 Cookie 的 HTTP 响应可能表现为以下形式:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


然而,因为 Cookie 值来源于未经校验的用户输入,所以仅当提交给 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字符时,响应才会保留这种形式。如果攻击者提交的是一个恶意字符串,比如 "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...",那么 HTTP 响应就会被分割成以下形式的两个响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


显然,第二个响应已完全由攻击者控制,攻击者可以用任何所需标头和正文内容构建该响应。攻击者可以构建任意 HTTP 响应,从而发起多种形式的攻击,包括:cross-user defacement、web and browser cache poisoning、cross-site scripting 和 page hijacking。

Cross-User Defacement:攻击者可以向一个易受攻击的服务器发出一个请求,导致服务器创建两个响应,其中第二个响应可能会被曲解为对其他请求的响应,而这一请求很可能是与服务器共享相同 TCP 连接的另一用户发出的。这种攻击可以通过以下方式实现:攻击者诱骗用户,让他们自己提交恶意请求;或在远程情况下,攻击者与用户共享同一个连接到服务器(如共享代理服务器)的 TCP 连接。最理想的情况是,攻击者通过这种方式使用户相信自己的应用程序已经遭受了黑客攻击,进而对应用程序的安全性失去信心。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能提供经特殊技术处理的内容,这些内容旨在模仿应用程序的执行方式,但会重定向用户的私人信息(如帐号和密码),将这些信息发送给攻击者。

Cache Poisoning:如果多用户 Web 缓存或者单用户浏览器缓存将恶意构建的响应缓存起来,该响应的破坏力会更大。如果响应缓存在共享的 Web 缓存(如在代理服务器中常见的缓存)中,那么使用该缓存的所有用户都会不断收到恶意内容,直到清除该缓存项为止。同样,如果响应缓存在单个用户的浏览器中,那么在清除该缓存项以前,该用户会不断收到恶意内容。然而,影响仅局限于本地浏览器的用户。

Cross-Site Scripting:攻击者控制了应用程序传送的响应后,就可以选择多种恶意内容并将其传播给用户。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常见的攻击形式,这种攻击在响应中包含了恶意的 JavaScript 或其他代码,并在用户的浏览器中执行。基于 XSS 的攻击手段花样百出,几乎是无穷无尽的,但通常它们都会包含传输给攻击者的私有数据(如 Cookie 或者其他会话信息)。在攻击者的控制下,指引受害者进入恶意的网络内容;或者利用易受攻击的站点,对用户的机器进行其他恶意操作。对于易受攻击的应用程序用户,最常见且最危险的攻击就是使用 JavaScript 将会话和身份验证信息返回给攻击者,而后攻击者就可以完全控制受害者的帐号了。

Page Hijacking:除了利用一个易受攻击的应用程序向用户传输恶意内容,攻击者还可以利用相同的根漏洞,将服务器生成的供用户使用的敏感内容重定向,转而供攻击者使用。攻击者通过提交一个会产生两个响应的请求,即服务器做出的预期响应和攻击者创建的响应,致使某个中间节点(如共享的代理服务器)误导服务器所生成的响应,将本来应传送给用户的响应错误地传给攻击者。因为攻击者创建的请求产生了两个响应,第一个被解析为针对攻击者请求做出的响应,第二个则被忽略。当用户通过同一 TCP 连接发出合法请求时,攻击者的请求已经在此处等候,并被解析为针对受害者这一请求的响应。这时,攻击者将第二个请求发送给服务器,代理服务器利用针对受害者(用户)的、由该服务器产生的这一请求对服务器做出响应。因此,针对受害者的这一响应中会包含所有标头或正文中的敏感信息。

Open Redirect:如果允许未验证的输入控制重定向机制所使用的 URL,可能会有利于攻击者发动钓鱼攻击。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.golang.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookies 中包含未验证的数据会引发 HTTP 响应头文件操作攻击,并可能导致 cache-poisoning、cross-site scripting、cross-user defacement、page hijacking、cookie manipulation 或 open redirect。
Explanation
以下情况中会出现 Cookie Manipulation 漏洞:

1. 数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入 Web 应用程序,最常见的是 HTTP 请求。

2. 数据包含在一个 HTTP Cookie 中,该 Cookie 未经验证就发送给了 Web 用户。

如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,Cookie Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。从本质上看,这些漏洞是显而易见的:攻击者可将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,且该应用程序将这些数据包含在 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:当与类似跨站请求伪造的攻击相结合时,攻击者就可以篡改、添加、甚至覆盖合法用户的 cookie。

作为 HTTP 响应头文件,Cookie Manipulation 攻击也可导致其他类型的攻击,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
其中最常见的一种 Header Manipulation 攻击是 HTTP Response Splitting。为了成功地实施 HTTP Response Splitting 盗取,应用程序必须允许将那些包含 CR(回车,由 %0d 或 \r 指定)和 LF(换行,由 %0a 或 \n 指定)的字符输入到头文件中。攻击者利用这些字符不仅可以控制应用程序要发送的响应剩余头文件和正文,还可以创建完全受其控制的其他响应。

如今的许多现代应用程序服务器可以防止 HTTP 头文件感染恶意字符。例如,如果尝试使用被禁用的字符设置头文件,最新版本的 Apache Tomcat 会抛出 IllegalArgumentException。如果您的应用程序服务器能够防止设置带有换行符的头文件,则其具备对 HTTP Response Splitting 的防御能力。然而,单纯地过滤换行符可能无法保证应用程序不受 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 的攻击,因此必须在设置带有用户输入的 HTTP 头文件时采取措施。

例 1:下列代码片段会从 HTTP 请求中读取网络日志项的作者名字 author,并将其置于一个 HTTP 响应的 cookie 头文件中。


String author = request.getParameter(AUTHOR_PARAM);
...
Cookie cookie = new Cookie("author", author);
cookie.setMaxAge(cookieExpiration);
response.addCookie(cookie);


假设在请求中提交了一个字符串,该字符串由标准的字母数字字符组成,如“Jane Smith”,那么包含该 Cookie 的 HTTP 响应可能表现为以下形式:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


然而,因为 cookie 值来源于未经校验的用户输入,所以仅当提交给 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字符时,响应才会保留这种形式。如果攻击者提交的是一个恶意字符串,比如“Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...”,那么 HTTP 响应就会被分割成以下形式的两个响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


显然,第二个响应已完全由攻击者控制,攻击者可以用任何所需标头和正文内容构建该响应。攻击者可以构建任意 HTTP 响应,从而发起多种形式的攻击,包括:cross-user defacement、web and browser cache poisoning、cross-site scripting 和 page hijacking。

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

示例 2:以下代码会调整Example 1 以适应 Android 平台。


...
CookieManager webCookieManager = CookieManager.getInstance();
String author = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString(AUTHOR_PARAM);
String setCookie = "author=" + author + "; max-age=" + cookieExpiration;
webCookieManager.setCookie(url, setCookie);

...
Cross-User Defacement:攻击者可以向一个易受攻击的服务器发出一个请求,导致服务器创建两个响应,其中第二个响应可能会被曲解为对其他请求的响应,而这一请求很可能是与服务器共享相同 TCP 连接的另一用户发出的。这种攻击可以通过以下方式实现:攻击者诱骗用户,让他们自己提交恶意请求;或在远程情况下,攻击者与用户共享同一个连接到服务器(如共享代理服务器)的 TCP 连接。最理想的情况是,攻击者通过这种方式使用户相信自己的应用程序已经遭受了黑客攻击,进而对应用程序的安全性失去信心。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能提供经特殊技术处理的内容,这些内容旨在模仿应用程序的执行方式,但会重定向用户的私人信息(如帐号和密码),将这些信息发送给攻击者。

缓存中毒: 如果多用户 Web 缓存或者单用户浏览器缓存将恶意构建的响应缓存起来,该响应的破坏力会更大。如果响应缓存在共享的 Web 缓存(如在代理服务器中常见的缓存)中,那么使用该缓存的所有用户都会不断收到恶意内容,直到清除该缓存项为止。同样,如果响应缓存在单个用户的浏览器中,那么在清除该缓存项以前,该用户会不断收到恶意内容。然而,影响仅局限于本地浏览器的用户。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻击者控制了应用程序传送的响应,就可以选择多种恶意内容并将其传播给用户。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常见的攻击形式,这种攻击在响应中包含了恶意的 JavaScript 或其他代码,并在用户的浏览器中执行。基于 XSS 的攻击手段花样百出,几乎是无穷无尽的,但通常它们都会包含传输给攻击者的私有数据(如 Cookie 或者其他会话信息)。在攻击者的控制下,指引受害者进入恶意的网络内容;或者利用易受攻击的站点,对用户的机器进行其他恶意操作。对于易受攻击的应用程序用户,最常见且最危险的攻击就是使用 JavaScript 将会话和身份验证信息返回给攻击者,而后攻击者就可以完全控制受害者的帐号了。

Page Hijacking:除了利用一个易受攻击的应用程序向用户传输恶意内容,还可以利用相同的根漏洞,将服务器生成的供用户使用的敏感内容重定向,转而供攻击者使用。攻击者通过提交一个会导致两个响应的请求,即服务器做出的预期响应和攻击者创建的响应,致使某个中间节点(如共享的代理服务器)误导服务器所生成的响应,将本来应传送给用户的响应错误地传给攻击者。因为攻击者创建的请求产生了两个响应,第一个被解析为针对攻击者请求做出的响应,第二个则被忽略。当用户通过同一 TCP 连接发出合法请求时,攻击者的请求已经在此处等候,并被解析为针对受害者这一请求的响应。这时,攻击者将第二个请求发送给服务器,代理服务器利用针对受害者(用户)的、由该服务器产生的这一请求对服务器做出响应,因此,针对受害者的这一响应中会包含所有头文件或正文中的敏感信息。

打开重定向:如果允许未验证的输入来控制重定向机制所使用的 URL,可能会有利于攻击者发动钓鱼攻击。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.java.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookies 中包含未验证的数据会引发 HTTP 响应头文件操作攻击,并可能导致 cache-poisoning、cross-site scripting、cross-user defacement、page hijacking、cookie manipulation 或 open redirect。
Explanation
以下情况中会出现 Cookie Manipulation 漏洞:

1. 数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入 Web 应用程序,最常见的是 HTTP 请求。

2. 数据包含在一个 HTTP Cookie 中,该 Cookie 未经验证就发送给了 Web 用户。

如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,Cookie Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。从本质上看,这些漏洞是显而易见的:攻击者可将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,然后该应用程序将这些数据包含在 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:当与类似跨站请求伪造的攻击相结合时,攻击者就可以篡改、添加、甚至覆盖合法用户的 cookie。

作为 HTTP 响应头文件,Cookie Manipulation 攻击也可导致其他类型的攻击,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
其中最常见的一种 Header Manipulation 攻击是 HTTP Response Splitting。为了成功地实施 HTTP Response Splitting 盗取,应用程序必须允许将那些包含 CR(回车,由 %0d 或 \r 指定)和 LF(换行,由 %0a 或 \n 指定)的字符输入到头文件中。攻击者利用这些字符不仅可以控制应用程序要发送的响应剩余头文件和正文,还可以创建完全受其控制的其他响应。

如今的许多现代应用程序服务器可以防止 HTTP 头文件感染恶意字符。例如,如果尝试使用被禁用的字符设置头文件,最新版本的 Apache Tomcat 会抛出 IllegalArgumentException。如果您的应用程序服务器能够防止设置带有换行符的头文件,则其具备对 HTTP Response Splitting 的防御能力。然而,单纯地过滤换行符可能无法保证应用程序不受 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 的攻击,因此必须在设置带有用户输入的 HTTP 头文件时采取措施。

示例:下列代码片段会从 HTTP 请求中读取网络日志项的作者名字 author,并将其置于一个 HTTP 响应的 cookie 头文件中。


author = form.author.value;
...
document.cookie = "author=" + author + ";expires="+cookieExpiration;
...


假设在请求中提交了一个字符串,该字符串由标准的字母数字字符组成,如“Jane Smith”,那么包含该 Cookie 的 HTTP 响应可能表现为以下形式:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


然而,因为 cookie 值来源于未经校验的用户输入,所以仅当提交给 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字符时,响应才会保留这种形式。如果攻击者提交的是一个恶意字符串,比如 "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n......",那么 HTTP 响应就会被分割成以下形式的两个响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


显然,第二个响应已完全由攻击者控制,攻击者可以用任何所需标头和正文内容构建该响应。攻击者可以构建任意 HTTP 响应,从而发起多种形式的攻击,包括:cross-user defacement、web and browser cache poisoning、cross-site scripting 和 page hijacking。

Cross-User Defacement:攻击者可以向一个易受攻击的服务器发出一个请求,该请求将导致服务器创建两个响应,其中第二个响应可能会被曲解为对其他请求的响应,而这一请求很可能是与服务器共享相同 TCP 连接的另一用户发出的。这种攻击可以通过以下方式实现:攻击者诱骗用户,让他们自己提交恶意请求;或在远程情况下,攻击者与用户共享同一个连接到服务器(如共享代理服务器)的 TCP 连接。最理想的情况是,攻击者通过这种方式使用户相信自己的应用程序已经遭受了黑客攻击,进而对应用程序的安全性失去信心。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能提供经特殊技术处理的内容,这些内容旨在模仿应用程序的执行方式,但会重定向用户的私人信息(如帐号和密码),将这些信息发送给攻击者。

Cache Poisoning: 如果多用户 Web 缓存或者单用户浏览器缓存将恶意构建的响应缓存起来,该响应的破坏力会更大。如果响应缓存在共享的 Web 缓存(如在代理服务器中常见的缓存)中,那么使用该缓存的所有用户都会不断收到恶意内容,直到清除该缓存项为止。同样,如果响应缓存在单个用户的浏览器中,那么在清除该缓存项以前,该用户会不断收到恶意内容。然而,影响仅局限于本地浏览器的用户。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻击者控制了应用程序传送的响应,就可以选择多种恶意内容并将其传播给用户。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常见的攻击形式,这种攻击在响应中包含了恶意的 JavaScript 或其他代码,并在用户的浏览器中执行。基于 XSS 的攻击手段花样百出,几乎是无穷无尽的,但通常它们都会包含传输给攻击者的私有数据(如 Cookie 或者其他会话信息)。在攻击者的控制下,指引受害者进入恶意的网络内容;或者利用易受攻击的站点,对用户的机器进行其他恶意操作。对于易受攻击的应用程序用户,最常见且最危险的攻击就是使用 JavaScript 将会话和身份验证信息返回给攻击者,而后攻击者就可以完全控制受害者的帐号了。

Page Hijacking:除了利用一个易受攻击的应用程序向用户传输恶意内容,还可以利用相同的根漏洞,将服务器生成的供用户使用的敏感内容重定向,转而供攻击者使用。攻击者通过提交一个会导致两个响应的请求,即服务器做出的预期响应和攻击者创建的响应,致使某个中间节点(如共享的代理服务器)误导服务器所生成的响应,将本来应传送给用户的响应错误地传给攻击者。因为攻击者创建的请求产生了两个响应,第一个被解析为针对攻击者请求做出的响应,第二个则被忽略。当用户通过同一 TCP 连接发出合法请求时,攻击者的请求已经在此处等候,并被解析为针对受害者这一请求的响应。这时,攻击者将第二个请求发送给服务器,代理服务器利用针对受害者(用户)的、由该服务器产生的这一请求对服务器做出响应,因此,针对受害者的这一响应中会包含所有头文件或正文中的敏感信息。

Open Redirect:如果允许未验证的输入来控制重定向机制所使用的 URL,可能会有利于攻击者发动钓鱼攻击。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.javascript.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookies 中包含未验证的数据会引发 HTTP 响应头文件操作攻击,并可能导致 cache-poisoning、cross-site scripting、cross-user defacement、page hijacking、cookie manipulation 或 open redirect。
Explanation
以下情况中会出现 Cookie Manipulation 漏洞:

1. 数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入 Web 应用程序,最常见的是 HTTP 请求。

2. 数据包含在一个 HTTP Cookie 中,该 Cookie 未经验证就发送给了 Web 用户。

如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,Cookie Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。从本质上看,这些漏洞是显而易见的:攻击者可将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,且该应用程序将这些数据包含在 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:当与类似跨站请求伪造的攻击相结合时,攻击者就可以篡改、添加、甚至覆盖合法用户的 cookie。

作为 HTTP 响应头文件,Cookie Manipulation 攻击也可导致其他类型的攻击,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
其中最常见的一种 Header Manipulation 攻击是 HTTP Response Splitting。为了成功地实施 HTTP Response Splitting 盗取,应用程序必须允许将那些包含 CR(回车,由 %0d 或 \r 指定)和 LF(换行,由 %0a 或 \n 指定)的字符输入到头文件中。攻击者利用这些字符不仅可以控制应用程序要发送的响应剩余头文件和正文,还可以创建完全受其控制的其他响应。

如今的许多现代应用程序服务器可以防止 HTTP 头文件感染恶意字符。例如,如果尝试使用被禁用的字符设置头文件,最新版本的 Apache Tomcat 会抛出 IllegalArgumentException。如果您的应用程序服务器能够防止设置带有换行符的头文件,则其具备对 HTTP Response Splitting 的防御能力。然而,单纯地过滤换行符可能无法保证应用程序不受 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 的攻击,因此必须在设置带有用户输入的 HTTP 头文件时采取措施。

示例:下列代码片段会从 HTTP 请求中读取网络日志项的作者名字 author,并将其置于一个 HTTP 响应的 cookie 头文件中。


<?php
$author = $_GET['AUTHOR_PARAM'];
...
header("author: $author");
?>


假设在请求中提交了一个字符串,该字符串由标准的字母数字字符组成,如“Jane Smith”,那么包含该 Cookie 的 HTTP 响应可能表现为以下形式:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


然而,因为 cookie 值来源于未经校验的用户输入,所以仅当提交给 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字符时,响应才会保留这种形式。如果攻击者提交的是一个恶意字符串,比如 "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n......",那么 HTTP 响应就会被分割成以下形式的两个响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


显然,第二个响应已完全由攻击者控制,攻击者可以用任何所需标头和正文内容构建该响应。攻击者可以构建任意 HTTP 响应,从而发起多种形式的攻击,包括:cross-user defacement、web and browser cache poisoning、cross-site scripting 和 page hijacking。

Cross-User Defacement:攻击者可以向一个易受攻击的服务器发出一个请求,导致服务器创建两个响应,其中第二个响应可能会被曲解为对其他请求的响应,而这一请求很可能是与服务器共享相同 TCP 连接的另一用户发出的。这种攻击可以通过以下方式实现:攻击者诱骗用户,让他们自己提交恶意请求;或在远程情况下,攻击者与用户共享同一个连接到服务器(如共享代理服务器)的 TCP 连接。最理想的情况是,攻击者通过这种方式使用户相信自己的应用程序已经遭受了黑客攻击,进而对应用程序的安全性失去信心。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能提供经特殊技术处理的内容,这些内容旨在模仿应用程序的执行方式,但会重定向用户的私人信息(如帐号和密码),将这些信息发送给攻击者。

Cache Poisoning: 如果多用户 Web 缓存或者单用户浏览器缓存将恶意构建的响应缓存起来,该响应的破坏力会更大。如果响应缓存在共享的 Web 缓存(如在代理服务器中常见的缓存)中,那么使用该缓存的所有用户都会不断收到恶意内容,直到清除该缓存项为止。同样,如果响应缓存在单个用户的浏览器中,那么在清除该缓存项以前,该用户会不断收到恶意内容。然而,影响仅局限于本地浏览器的用户。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻击者控制了应用程序传送的响应,就可以选择多种恶意内容并将其传播给用户。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常见的攻击形式,这种攻击在响应中包含了恶意的 JavaScript 或其他代码,并在用户的浏览器中执行。基于 XSS 的攻击手段花样百出,几乎是无穷无尽的,但通常它们都会包含传输给攻击者的私有数据(如 Cookie 或者其他会话信息)。在攻击者的控制下,指引受害者进入恶意的网络内容;或者利用易受攻击的站点,对用户的机器进行其他恶意操作。对于易受攻击的应用程序用户,最常见且最危险的攻击就是使用 JavaScript 将会话和身份验证信息返回给攻击者,而后攻击者就可以完全控制受害者的帐号了。

Page Hijacking:除了利用一个易受攻击的应用程序向用户传输恶意内容,还可以利用相同的根漏洞,将服务器生成的供用户使用的敏感内容重定向,转而供攻击者使用。攻击者通过提交一个会导致两个响应的请求,即服务器做出的预期响应和攻击者创建的响应,致使某个中间节点(如共享的代理服务器)误导服务器所生成的响应,将本来应传送给用户的响应错误地传给攻击者。因为攻击者创建的请求产生了两个响应,第一个被解析为针对攻击者请求做出的响应,第二个则被忽略。当用户通过同一 TCP 连接发出合法请求时,攻击者的请求已经在此处等候,并被解析为针对受害者这一请求的响应。这时,攻击者将第二个请求发送给服务器,代理服务器利用针对受害者(用户)的、由该服务器产生的这一请求对服务器做出响应,因此,针对受害者的这一响应中会包含所有头文件或正文中的敏感信息。

Open Redirect:如果允许未验证的输入来控制重定向机制所使用的 URL,可能会有利于攻击者发动钓鱼攻击。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.php.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
HTTP 响应头文件中包含未验证的数据会引发 cache-poisoning、cross-site scripting、cross-user defacement、page hijacking、cookie manipulation 或 open redirect。
Explanation
以下情况中会出现 Header Manipulation 漏洞:

1. 数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入 Web 应用程序,最常见的是 HTTP 请求。

2. 数据包含在一个 HTTP 响应头文件里,未经验证就发送给了 Web 用户。

如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,Header Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。从本质上看,这些漏洞是显而易见的:一个攻击者将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,且该应用程序将数据包含在 HTTP 响应头文件中。

其中最常见的一种 Header Manipulation 攻击是 HTTP Response Splitting。为了成功地实施 HTTP Response Splitting 盗取,应用程序必须允许将那些包含 CR(回车,由 %0d 或 \r 指定)和 LF(换行,由 %0a 或 \n 指定)的字符输入到头文件中。攻击者利用这些字符不仅可以控制应用程序要发送的响应剩余头文件和正文,还可以创建完全受其控制的其他响应。

如今的许多现代应用程序服务器可以防止 HTTP 头文件感染恶意字符。如果您的应用程序服务器能够防止设置带有换行符的头文件,则其具备对 HTTP Response Splitting 的防御能力。然而,单纯地过滤换行符可能无法保证应用程序不受 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 的攻击,因此必须在设置带有用户输入的 HTTP 头文件时采取措施。

示例:下段代码会从 HTTP 请求读取位置,并将其设置到 HTTP 响应的位置字段的头文件中。


location = req.field('some_location')
...
response.addHeader("location",location)


假设在请求中提交了一个由标准字母数字字符组成的字符串,如“index.html”,则包含该 Cookie 的 HTTP 响应可能表现为以下形式:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
location: index.html
...


然而,因为该位置的值由未经验证的用户输入组成,所以仅当提交给 some_location 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字符时,响应才会保留这种形式。如果攻击者提交的是一个恶意字符串,比如“index.html\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...”,那么 HTTP 响应就会被分割成以下形式的两个响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
location: index.html

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


显然,第二个响应已完全由攻击者控制,攻击者可以用任何所需标头和正文内容构建该响应。攻击者可以构建任意 HTTP 响应,从而发起多种形式的攻击,包括:cross-user defacement、web and browser cache poisoning、cross-site scripting 和 page hijacking。

Cross-User Defacement:攻击者可以向一个易受攻击的服务器发出一个请求,导致服务器创建两个响应,其中第二个响应可能会被曲解为对其他请求的响应,而这一请求很可能是与服务器共享相同 TCP 连接的另一用户发出的。这种攻击可以通过以下方式实现:攻击者诱骗用户,让他们自己提交恶意请求;或在远程情况下,攻击者与用户共享同一个连接到服务器(如共享代理服务器)的 TCP 连接。最理想的情况是,攻击者通过这种方式使用户相信自己的应用程序已经遭受了黑客攻击,进而对应用程序的安全性失去信心。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能提供经特殊技术处理的内容,这些内容旨在模仿应用程序的执行方式,但会重定向用户的私人信息(如帐号和密码),将这些信息发送给攻击者。

Cache Poisoning: 如果多用户 Web 缓存或者单用户浏览器缓存将恶意构建的响应缓存起来,该响应的破坏力会更大。如果响应缓存在共享的 Web 缓存(如在代理服务器中常见的缓存)中,那么使用该缓存的所有用户都会不断收到恶意内容,直到清除该缓存项为止。同样,如果响应缓存在单个用户的浏览器中,那么在清除该缓存项以前,该用户会不断收到恶意内容。然而,影响仅局限于本地浏览器的用户。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻击者控制了应用程序传送的响应,就可以选择多种恶意内容并将其传播给用户。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常见的攻击形式,这种攻击在响应中包含了恶意的 JavaScript 或其他代码,并在用户的浏览器中执行。基于 XSS 的攻击手段花样百出,几乎是无穷无尽的,但通常它们都会包含传输给攻击者的私有数据(如 Cookie 或者其他会话信息)。在攻击者的控制下,指引受害者进入恶意的网络内容;或者利用易受攻击的站点,对用户的机器进行其他恶意操作。对于易受攻击的应用程序用户,最常见且最危险的攻击就是使用 JavaScript 将会话和身份验证信息返回给攻击者,而后攻击者就可以完全控制受害者的帐号了。

Page Hijacking:除了利用一个易受攻击的应用程序向用户传输恶意内容,还可以利用相同的根漏洞,将服务器生成的供用户使用的敏感内容重定向,转而供攻击者使用。攻击者通过提交一个会导致两个响应的请求,即服务器做出的预期响应和攻击者创建的响应,致使某个中间节点(如共享的代理服务器)误导服务器所生成的响应,将本来应传送给用户的响应错误地传给攻击者。因为攻击者创建的请求产生了两个响应,第一个被解析为针对攻击者请求做出的响应,第二个则被忽略。当用户通过同一 TCP 连接发出合法请求时,攻击者的请求已经在此处等候,并被解析为针对受害者这一请求的响应。这时,攻击者将第二个请求发送给服务器,代理服务器利用针对受害者(用户)的、由该服务器产生的这一请求对服务器做出响应,因此,针对受害者的这一响应中会包含所有头文件或正文中的敏感信息。

Cookie Manipulation:当与类似跨站请求伪造的攻击相结合时,攻击者就可以篡改、添加、甚至覆盖合法用户的 cookie。

Open Redirect:如果允许未验证的输入来控制重定向机制所使用的 URL,可能会有利于攻击者发动钓鱼攻击。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.python.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 Cookie 中包含未经验证的数据会引发 HTTP Response Header Manipulation 攻击,并可能导致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect。
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation 漏洞会在以下情况下发生:

1. 数据通过不可信来源进入 Web 应用程序,最常见的是 HTTP 请求。

2. 数据包含在未经验证就发送给 Web 用户的 HTTP Cookie 中。

如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,Cookie Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。 从本质上看,这些漏洞是显而易见的:攻击者可将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,然后该应用程序将这些数据包含在 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation: 当与 Cross-Site Request Forgery 等攻击相结合时,攻击者就可以篡改、添加到、甚至覆盖合法用户的 Cookie。

作为 HTTP 响应标头,Cookie Manipulation 攻击也可导致其他类型的攻击,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
其中最常见的一种 Header Manipulation 攻击是 HTTP Response Splitting。 为了成功实施 HTTP Response Splitting 漏洞,该应用程序必须允许将包含 CR(回车符,也可以由 %0d 或 \r 指定)和 LF(换行符,也可以由 %0a 或 \n 指定)字符的输入包含在标头中。 攻击者不仅可以利用这些字符控制应用程序要发送的响应的剩余标头和正文,还可以创建完全受其控制的其他响应。

如今的许多现代应用程序服务器可以防止 HTTP 标头感染恶意字符。 例如,如果尝试使用被禁用的字符设置标头,最新版本的 Apache Tomcat 会抛出 IllegalArgumentException。 如果您的应用程序服务器能够防止设置带有换行符的标头,则其具备对 HTTP Response Splitting 的防御能力。 然而,单纯地过滤换行符可能无法保证应用程序不受 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 的攻击,因此在设置带有用户输入的 HTTP 标头时仍需小心谨慎。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.scala.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookies 中包含未验证的数据会引发 HTTP 响应头文件操作攻击,并可能导致 cache-poisoning、cross-site scripting、cross-user defacement、page hijacking、cookie manipulation 或 open redirect。
Explanation
以下情况中会出现 Cookie Manipulation 漏洞:

1. 数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入 Web 应用程序,最常见的是 HTTP 请求。

2. 数据包含在一个 HTTP Cookie 中,该 Cookie 未经验证就发送给了 Web 用户。

如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,Cookie Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。从本质上看,这些漏洞是显而易见的:攻击者可将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,然后该应用程序将这些数据包含在 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:当与类似跨站请求伪造的攻击相结合时,攻击者就可以篡改、添加、甚至覆盖合法用户的 cookie。

作为 HTTP 响应头文件,Cookie Manipulation 攻击也可导致其他类型的攻击,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
其中最常见的一种 Header Manipulation 攻击是 HTTP Response Splitting。为了成功地实施 HTTP Response Splitting 盗取,应用程序必须允许将那些包含 CR(回车,由 %0d 或 \r 指定)和 LF(换行,由 %0a 或 \n 指定)的字符输入到头文件中。攻击者利用这些字符不仅可以控制应用程序要发送的响应剩余头文件和正文,还可以创建完全受其控制的其他响应。

如今的许多现代应用程序服务器可以防止 HTTP 头文件感染恶意字符。例如,如果尝试使用被禁用的字符设置头文件,最新版本的 Apache Tomcat 会抛出 IllegalArgumentException。如果您的应用程序服务器能够防止设置带有换行符的头文件,则其具备对 HTTP Response Splitting 的防御能力。然而,单纯地过滤换行符可能无法保证应用程序不受 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 的攻击,因此必须在设置带有用户输入的 HTTP 头文件时采取措施。

示例:以下代码片段会从 HTTP 请求中读取网络日志项的作者名字 author,并将其置于一个 HTTP 响应的 Cookie 头文件中。


...
author = Request.Form(AUTHOR_PARAM)
Response.Cookies("author") = author
Response.Cookies("author").Expires = cookieExpiration
...


假设在请求中提交了一个字符串,该字符串由标准的字母数字字符组成,如“Jane Smith”,那么包含该 Cookie 的 HTTP 响应可能表现为以下形式:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Jane Smith
...


然而,因为 cookie 值来源于未经校验的用户输入,所以仅当提交给 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字符时,响应才会保留这种形式。如果攻击者提交的是一个恶意字符串,比如“Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...”,那么 HTTP 响应就会被分割成以下形式的两个响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
Set-Cookie: author=Wiley Hacker

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


显然,第二个响应已完全由攻击者控制,攻击者可以用任何所需标头和正文内容构建该响应。攻击者可以构建任意 HTTP 响应,从而发起多种形式的攻击,包括:cross-user defacement、web and browser cache poisoning、cross-site scripting 和 page hijacking。

Cross-User Defacement:攻击者可以向一个易受攻击的服务器发出一个请求,导致服务器创建两个响应,其中第二个响应可能会被曲解为对其他请求的响应,而这一请求很可能是与服务器共享相同 TCP 连接的另一用户发出的。这种攻击可以通过以下方式实现:攻击者诱骗用户,让他们自己提交恶意请求;或在远程情况下,攻击者与用户共享同一个连接到服务器(如共享代理服务器)的 TCP 连接。最理想的情况是,攻击者通过这种方式使用户相信自己的应用程序已经遭受了黑客攻击,进而对应用程序的安全性失去信心。最糟糕的情况是,攻击者可能提供经特殊技术处理的内容,这些内容旨在模仿应用程序的执行方式,但会重定向用户的私人信息(如帐号和密码),将这些信息发送给攻击者。

缓存中毒:如果多用户 Web 缓存或者单用户浏览器缓存将恶意构建的响应缓存起来,该响应的破坏力会更大。如果响应缓存在共享的 Web 缓存(如在代理服务器中常见的缓存)中,那么使用该缓存的所有用户都会不断收到恶意内容,直到清除该缓存项为止。同样,如果响应缓存在单个用户的浏览器中,那么在清除该缓存项以前,该用户会不断收到恶意内容。然而,影响仅局限于本地浏览器的用户。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻击者控制了应用程序传送的响应,就可以选择多种恶意内容并将其传播给用户。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常见的攻击形式,这种攻击在响应中包含了恶意的 JavaScript 或其他代码,并在用户的浏览器中执行。基于 XSS 的攻击手段花样百出,几乎是无穷无尽的,但通常它们都会包含传输给攻击者的私有数据(如 Cookie 或者其他会话信息)。在攻击者的控制下,指引受害者进入恶意的网络内容;或者利用易受攻击的站点,对用户的机器进行其他恶意操作。对于易受攻击的应用程序用户,最常见且最危险的攻击就是使用 JavaScript 将会话和身份验证信息返回给攻击者,而后攻击者就可以完全控制受害者的帐号了。

Page Hijacking:除了利用一个易受攻击的应用程序向用户传输恶意内容,还可以利用相同的根漏洞,将服务器生成的供用户使用的敏感内容重定向,转而供攻击者使用。攻击者通过提交一个会导致两个响应的请求,即服务器做出的预期响应和攻击者创建的响应,致使某个中间节点(如共享的代理服务器)误导服务器所生成的响应,将本来应传送给用户的响应错误地传给攻击者。因为攻击者创建的请求产生了两个响应,第一个被解析为针对攻击者请求做出的响应,第二个则被忽略。当用户通过同一 TCP 连接发出合法请求时,攻击者的请求已经在此处等候,并被解析为针对受害者这一请求的响应。这时,攻击者将第二个请求发送给服务器,代理服务器利用针对受害者(用户)的、由该服务器产生的这一请求对服务器做出响应,因此,针对受害者的这一响应中会包含所有头文件或正文中的敏感信息。

Open Redirect:如果允许未验证的输入来控制重定向机制所使用的 URL,可能会有利于攻击者发动钓鱼攻击。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.vb.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 SMTP 标头中包含未经验证的数据使得攻击者可以添加任意标头(如 CCBCC),从而利用这些标头向其本身泄露邮件内容或将邮件服务器用作垃圾邮件自动程序。
Explanation
SMTP Header Manipulation 漏洞会在以下情况下发生:

1.数据通过不可信数据源进入应用程序,最常见的是 Web 应用程序中的 HTTP 请求。

2.数据包含在未经验证就发送给邮件服务器的 SMTP 标头中。

如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,SMTP Header Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。从本质上看,该漏洞是显而易见的:攻击者可将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,然后该应用程序将这些数据包含在 SMTP 标头中。

一种最常见的 SMTP Header Manipulation 攻击是分发垃圾邮件。如果应用程序包含一个易受攻击的“联系我们”表单,该表单允许设置电子邮件的主题和正文,攻击者就能够设置任意内容,并将包含电子邮件地址列表的 CC 标头匿名注入垃圾邮件,因为电子邮件是从受害者服务器发送的。

示例:以下代码段将读取“联系我们”表单的主题和正文:


func handler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
subject := r.FormValue("subject")
body := r.FormValue("body")
auth := smtp.PlainAuth("identity", "user@example.com", "password", "mail.example.com")
to := []string{"recipient@example.net"}
msg := []byte("To: " + recipient1 + "\r\n" + subject + "\r\n" + body + "\r\n")
err := smtp.SendMail("mail.example.com:25", auth, "sender@example.org", to, msg)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
}


假设在请求中提交了一个由标准字母和数字字符组成的字符串,如“Page not working”,那么 SMTP 头可能表现为以下形式:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Page not working
...


然而,因为标头值是使用未经验证的用户输入构造的,所以仅当提交给 subject 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字符时,响应才会保留这种形式。如果攻击者提交恶意字符串,例如“Congratulations!! You won the lottery!!!\r\ncc:victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com ...”,则 SMTP 标头将采用以下形式:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Congratulations!! You won the lottery
cc: victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com
...


这使得攻击者可以在其他攻击中制作垃圾邮件或发送匿名电子邮件。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 93
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.golang.header_manipulation_smtp
Abstract
在 SMTP 头中包括未经验证的数据使得攻击者可以添加任意标题(如 CCBCC),从而利用这些标题向其本身泄露邮件内容或将邮件服务器用作垃圾邮件自动程序。
Explanation
在以下情况下会发生 SMTP Header Manipulation 漏洞:

1. 数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序,最常见的是 Web 应用程序中的 HTTP 请求。

2. 数据包含在一个 SMTP 头中,该 SMTP 头未经验证就发送给了邮件服务器。

如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,SMTP Header Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。从本质上看,这些漏洞是显而易见的:攻击者可将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,且该应用程序将这些数据包含在 SMTP 头中。

一种最常见的 SMTP Header Manipulation 攻击是分发垃圾邮件。如果应用程序包含一个易受攻击的“联系我们”表单,该表单允许设置电子邮件的主题和正文,攻击者就能够设置任意内容,并将包含电子邮件地址列表的 CC 标题匿名注入垃圾邮件,因为电子邮件会从受害者服务器进行发送。

示例:以下代码段读取“联系我们”表单的主题和正文:


String subject = request.getParameter("subject");
String body = request.getParameter("body");
MimeMessage message = new MimeMessage(session);
message.setFrom(new InternetAddress("webform@acme.com"));
message.setRecipients(Message.RecipientType.TO, InternetAddress.parse("support@acme.com"));
message.setSubject("[Contact us query] " + subject);
message.setText(body);
Transport.send(message);


假设在请求中提交了一个由标准字母和数字字符组成的字符串,如“Page not working”,那么 SMTP 头可能表现为以下形式:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Page not working
...


然而,因为该头的值是利用未经验证的用户输入构造的,所以仅当提交给 subject 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字符时,响应才会保留这种形式。如果攻击者提交恶意字符串,例如“Congratulations!!You won the lottery!!!\r\ncc:victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com ...”,则 SMTP 头将表现为以下形式:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Congratulations!! You won the lottery
cc: victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com
...


这将有效地允许攻击者制造垃圾邮件,或者发送匿名电子邮件等攻击。
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 93
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.java.header_manipulation_smtp
Abstract
在 SMTP 头中包括未经验证的数据使得攻击者可以添加任意标题(如 CCBCC),从而利用这些标题向其本身泄露邮件内容或将邮件服务器用作垃圾邮件自动程序。
Explanation
在以下情况下会发生 SMTP Header Manipulation 漏洞:

1. 数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序,最常见的是 Web 应用程序中的 HTTP 请求。

2. 数据包含在一个 SMTP 头中,该 SMTP 头未经验证就发送给了邮件服务器。

如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,SMTP Header Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。从本质上看,这些漏洞是显而易见的:攻击者可将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,且该应用程序将这些数据包含在 SMTP 头中。

一种最常见的 SMTP Header Manipulation 攻击用于分发垃圾邮件。如果应用程序包含一个允许设置电子邮件主题和正文的易受攻击的“联系我们”表单,攻击者将能够设置任意内容,并注入包含匿名(因为电子邮件是从受害者服务器发送的)指向垃圾邮件的电子邮件地址列表的 CC 标题。

示例:以下代码段读取“联系我们”表单的主题和正文:


$subject = $_GET['subject'];
$body = $_GET['body'];
mail("support@acme.com", "[Contact us query] " . $subject, $body);


假设在请求中提交了一个由标准字母和数字字符组成的字符串,如“Page not working”,那么 SMTP 头可能表现为以下形式:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Page not working
...


然而,因为该头的值是利用未经验证的用户输入构造的,所以仅当提交给 subject 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字符时,响应才会保留这种形式。如果攻击者提交恶意字符串,例如“Congratulations!!You won the lottery!!!\r\ncc:victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com ...”,则 SMTP 头将表现为以下形式:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Congratulations!! You won the lottery
cc: victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com
...


这将有效地允许攻击者制造垃圾邮件,或者发送匿名电子邮件等攻击。
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 93
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.php.header_manipulation_smtp
Abstract
在 SMTP 头中包括未经验证的数据使得攻击者可以添加任意标题(如 CCBCC),从而利用这些标题向其本身泄露邮件内容或将邮件服务器用作垃圾邮件自动程序。
Explanation
在以下情况下会发生 SMTP Header Manipulation 漏洞:

1. 数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序,最常见的是 Web 应用程序中的 HTTP 请求。

2. 数据包含在一个 SMTP 头中,该 SMTP 头未经验证就发送给了邮件服务器。

如同许多软件安全漏洞一样,SMTP Header Manipulation 只是通向终端的一个途径,它本身并不是终端。从本质上看,这些漏洞是显而易见的:攻击者可将恶意数据传送到易受攻击的应用程序,且该应用程序将这些数据包含在 SMTP 头中。

一种最常见的 SMTP Header Manipulation 攻击用于分发垃圾邮件。如果应用程序包含一个允许设置电子邮件主题和正文的易受攻击的“联系我们”表单,攻击者将能够设置任意内容,并注入包含匿名(因为电子邮件是从受害者服务器发送的)指向垃圾邮件的电子邮件地址列表的 CC 标题。

示例:以下代码段读取“联系我们”表单的主题和正文:


body = request.GET['body']
subject = request.GET['subject']
session = smtplib.SMTP(smtp_server, smtp_tls_port)
session.ehlo()
session.starttls()
session.login(username, password)
headers = "\r\n".join(["from: webform@acme.com",
"subject: [Contact us query] " + subject,
"to: support@acme.com",
"mime-version: 1.0",
"content-type: text/html"])
content = headers + "\r\n\r\n" + body
session.sendmail("webform@acme.com", "support@acme.com", content)


假设在请求中提交了一个由标准字母和数字字符组成的字符串,如“Page not working”,那么 SMTP 头可能表现为以下形式:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Page not working
...


然而,因为该头的值是利用未经验证的用户输入构造的,所以仅当提交给 subject 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字符时,响应才会保留这种形式。如果攻击者提交恶意字符串,例如“Congratulations!!You won the lottery!!!\r\ncc:victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com ...”,则 SMTP 头将表现为以下形式:


...
subject: [Contact us query] Congratulations!! You won the lottery
cc: victim1@mail.com,victim2@mail.com
...


这将有效地允许攻击者制造垃圾邮件,或者发送匿名电子邮件等攻击。
References
[1] OWASP Testing for IMAP/SMTP Injection (OTG-INPVAL-011)
[2] Vicente Aguilera Díaz MX Injection: Capturing and Exploiting Hidden Mail Servers
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 93
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.dataflow.python.header_manipulation_smtp
Abstract
显式禁用了可能提高 Cross-Site Scripting 攻击风险的 X-XSS-Protection 标头。
Explanation
默认情况下,通常会在常用浏览器中启用 X-XSS-Protection 标头。将标头值设置为 false (0) 后,禁用 Cross-Site Scripting 保护功能。

可以在多个位置设置标头,并且应检查其中是否存在配置错误和恶意篡改问题。
References
[1] IE8 Security Part IV: The XSS Filter
[2] OWASP OWASP Secure Headers Project
[3] HttpResponse.AppendHeader Method
[4] How to prevent cross-site scripting security issues
[5] HOW TO: Disable the Documentation Protocol for ASP.NET Web Services
[6] Configuring Services Using Configuration Files
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[11] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 554, CWE ID 1173
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[17] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[18] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[19] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[20] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[22] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.configuration.dotnet.html5_xss_protection
Abstract
明确禁用了可能提高 Cross-Site Scripting 攻击风险的 X-XSS-Protection 标头。
Explanation
默认情况下,通常会在常用浏览器中启用 X-XSS-Protection 标头。将标头值设置为 false (0) 后,禁用 Cross-Site Scripting 保护功能。

可以在多个位置设置标头,并且应检查其中是否存在配置错误和恶意篡改问题。

示例:以下代码配置了受 Spring Security 保护的应用程序,以禁用 XSS 保护功能:

<http auto-config="true">
...
<headers>
...
<xss-protection xss-protection-enabled="false" />
</headers>
</http>
References
[1] IE8 Security Part IV: The XSS Filter
[2] OWASP OWASP Secure Headers Project
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 554, CWE ID 1173
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.config.java.html5_cross_site_scripting_protection
Abstract
明确禁用了可能提高 cross-site scripting 攻击风险的 X-XSS-Protection 标头。
Explanation
默认情况下,通常会在常用浏览器中启用 X-XSS-Protection 标头。将标头值设置为 false (0) 后,禁用 Cross-Site Scripting 保护功能。
可以在多个位置设置标头,并且应检查其中是否存在配置错误和恶意篡改问题。
References
[1] IE8 Security Part IV: The XSS Filter
[2] OWASP OWASP Secure Headers Project
[3] Node.js Security Checklist
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 554, CWE ID 1173
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.dataflow.javascript.html5_cross_site_scripting_protection
Abstract
明确禁用了可能提高 cross-site scripting 攻击风险的 X-XSS-Protection 标头。
Explanation
默认情况下,通常会在常用浏览器中启用 X-XSS-Protection 标头。将标头值设置为 false (0) 后,禁用 Cross-Site Scripting 保护功能。

可以在多个位置设置标头,并且应检查其中是否存在配置错误和恶意篡改问题。
References
[1] IE8 Security Part IV: The XSS Filter
[2] OWASP OWASP Secure Headers Project
[3] django-secure
[4] SECURE_BROWSER_XSS_FILTER
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 554, CWE ID 1173
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[16] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[17] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[18] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.structural.python.html5_cross_site_scripting_protection
Abstract
禁用 HTML5 输入表单字段验证。
Explanation
HTML5 提供一项新功能,可轻松实现输入表单字段验证。通过 required 属性,可指定是否必须填写某一输入表单字段。指定字段类型可确保根据输入类型对输入进行检查。甚至还可以使用自定义 pattern 属性根据正则表达式来对输入进行检查。然而,在表单标签上添加 novalidate 属性以及在提交输入标签上添加 formnovalidate 属性时,将禁用这一验证功能。

例 1:以下示例通过 novalidate 属性禁用表单验证。


<form action="demo_form.asp" novalidate="novalidate">
E-mail: <input type="email" name="user_email" />
<input type="submit" />
</form>
例 2:以下示例通过 formnovalidate 属性禁用表单验证。


<form action="demo_form.asp" >
E-mail: <input type="email" name="user_email" />
<input type="submit" formnovalidate="formnovalidate"/>
</form>


禁用 HTML 表单验证功能不利于用户使用,而且可能导致服务器容易受到各种攻击。未经校验的输入是导致各种漏洞的根源,如 cross-site scripting、process control 和 SQL injection。
References
[1] HTML5 form novalidate Attribute W3Schools
[2] HTML5 input formnovalidate Attribute W3Schools
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 1173
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.content.html.html5_form_validation_turned_off
Abstract
如果在 URL 中加入未验证的输入,可能会让攻击者重写请求参数的值。攻击者可能会重写现有的参数值、注入新的参数或利用直接得到的变量。
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) 攻击包含将编码的查询字符串分隔符注入其他现有的参数中。如果 Web 应用程序没有正确地检查用户输入,恶意用户可能会破坏应用程序的逻辑,进行客户端侧或服务器侧攻击。如果再向 Web 应用程序提交参数,并且如果这些参数与现有参数的名称相同,则 Web 应用程序可能会有下列一种反应:

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


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

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

示例 2:下列代码使用来自于 HTTP 请求的输入来呈现两个超链接。

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


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

程序员尚未考虑下面这种可能性:攻击者可能会提供一个 lang(例如 en&poll_id=1),然后攻击者可以随意更改该 poll_id
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
desc.dataflow.dotnet.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
如果在 URL 中加入未验证的输入,可能会让攻击者重写请求参数的值。攻击者可能会重写现有的参数值、注入新的参数或利用直接得到的变量。
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) 攻击包含将编码的查询字符串分隔符注入其他现有的参数中。如果 Web 应用程序没有正确地检查用户输入,恶意用户可能会破坏应用程序的逻辑,进行客户端侧或服务器侧攻击。如果再向 Web 应用程序提交参数,并且如果这些参数与现有参数的名称相同,则 Web 应用程序可能会有下列一种反应:

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


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

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

例 2:下列代码使用来自于 HTTP 请求的输入来呈现两个超链接。

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


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

程序员尚未考虑下面这种可能性:攻击者可能会提供一个 lang(例如 en&poll_id=1),然后攻击者将可以随意更改该 poll_id
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
desc.dataflow.java.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
如果在 URL 中加入未验证的输入,可能会让攻击者重写请求参数的值。攻击者可能会重写现有的参数值、注入新的参数或利用直接得到的变量。
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) 攻击包含将编码的查询字符串分隔符注入其他现有的参数中。如果 Web 应用程序没有正确地检查用户输入,恶意用户可能会破坏应用程序的逻辑,进行客户端侧或服务器侧攻击。如果再向 Web 应用程序提交参数,并且如果这些参数与现有参数的名称相同,则 Web 应用程序可能会有下列一种反应:

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


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

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

例 2:下列代码使用来自于 HTTP 请求的输入来呈现两个超链接。


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


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

程序员没有考虑到攻击者可能提供 poll_id(例如“4567&candidate=green”)的可能性,届时得到的页面中将包含以下注入链接,因此,Green 女士将始终投票选择捡出第一个参数的应用程序服务器。
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=white">White 先生的投票<a>
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=green">Green 女士的投票<a>
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
desc.dataflow.php.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
如果在 URL 中加入未验证的输入,可能会让攻击者重写请求参数的值。攻击者可能会重写现有的参数值、注入新的参数或利用直接得到的变量。
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) 攻击包含将编码的查询字符串分隔符注入其他现有的参数中。如果 Web 应用程序没有正确地检查用户输入,恶意用户可能会破坏应用程序的逻辑,进行客户端侧或服务器侧攻击。如果再向 Web 应用程序提交参数,并且如果这些参数与现有参数的名称相同,则 Web 应用程序可能会有下列一种反应:

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


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

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

因为这表明,攻击者已经指定了 name=alice,但他们添加了额外的 name=alice&,如果在提取第一个匹配项的服务器上使用它,那么它可能会模仿 alice 以便获取有关她的帐户的详细信息。
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
desc.dataflow.ruby.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
某些函数可以返回指向要搜索的缓冲区边界之外的内存的指针。对指针的后续操作可能会产生意想不到的后果。
Explanation
在以下任一情况下,用于搜索缓冲区内字符的函数可以返回指向缓冲区边界之外的指针:

- 用户控制要搜索的缓冲区的内容。

- 用户控制要搜索的值。

示例 1:以下短程序在调用 rawmemchr() 时使用不受信任的命令行参数作为搜索缓冲区。


int main(int argc, char** argv) {
char* ret = rawmemchr(argv[0], 'x');
printf("%s\n", ret);
}


该程序本来是要输出 argv[0] 的一个子字符串,但是程序最终可能会输出位于 argv[0] 之前的部分内存。

该问题类似于字符串终止错误,即程序员利用字符数组来包含 null 终止符。
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
desc.semantic.cpp.illegal_pointer_value.master
Abstract
使用用户控制或不可信赖的数据来定义 HTML sanitizer 策略可能会允许攻击者避开清除要求并发起 cross-site scripting (XSS) 攻击。
Explanation
概括性术语“输入处理”描述了输入数据的验证、清除、筛选和编码/解码等功能。Cross-site scripting、SQL injection 和 process control 漏洞是由于输入处理不正确或者缺少输入处理造成的。除了输入验证之外,通常还会实现输入的清除,它会将输入转换为可接受的形式。HTML 清除是指清理和擦除用户输入,以便仅允许那些被视为安全的标签、属性和元素。
实施彻底的 HTML 清除策略十分困难;成功实施的关键是了解使用数据的上下文。每个上下文都有其各自的漏洞,应具体情况具体分析。使用 HTML sanitizer(例如 OWASP HTML sanitizer)防止 Web 应用程序中出现 XSS 漏洞是明智的,但实施不当会导致虚假安全。
例 1:以下 Java 代码使用用户控制的输入变量 elements 构建 HTML sanitizer 策略:


...
String elements = prop.getProperty("AllowedElements");
...
public static final PolicyFactory POLICY_DEFINITION = new HtmlPolicyBuilder()
.allowElements(elements)
.toFactory();

....


恶意用户可能会通过将危险元素(如 <script>)提供给 elements 而使 HTML sanitizer 策略接受这些元素。

References
[1] OWASP Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Prevention Cheat Sheet
[2] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[3] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
desc.dataflow.java.insecure_sanitizer_policy