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
如果在数据库连接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
连接字符串参数污染 (CSPP) 攻击包括将连接字符串参数注入到其他现有的参数中。这个漏洞类似于也可能会发生参数污染的 HTTP 环境中的漏洞(可能更广为人知)。然而,它可能还适用于其他地方,比如数据库连接字符串的。如果应用程序没有正确地检查用户输入,则恶意用户可能会破坏应用程序的逻辑,进行各种攻击,从窃取凭证到检索整个数据库。如果再向应用程序提交参数,并且如果这些参数与现有参数的名称相同,则数据库连接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

这可能取决于所使用的驱动程序、数据库类型乃至 API 的使用方法。

示例 1:以下代码使用 HTTP 请求中的输入来连接到数据库:


...
string password = Request.Form["db_pass"]; //gets POST parameter 'db_pass'
SqlConnection DBconn = new SqlConnection("Data Source = myDataSource; Initial Catalog = db; User ID = myUsername; Password = " + password + ";");
...


在这个例子中,程序员并没有考虑到攻击者可以提供 db_pass 参数,比如:
"xxx; Integrated Security = true",那么连接字符串就变成:

"Data Source = myDataSource; Initial Catalog = db; User ID = myUsername; Password = xxx; Integrated Security = true; "

这将使该应用程序可以使用其运行所在的操作系统帐户连接到数据库,从而绕过正常的身份验证。这意味着攻击者无需有效密码即可连接到数据库,并直接对数据库执行查询。
References
[1] Chema Alonso, Manuel Fernandez, Alejandro Martin and Antonio Guzmán Connection String Parameter Pollution Attacks
[2] Eric P. Maurice A New Threat To Web Applications: Connection String Parameter Pollution (CSPP)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.connection_string_parameter_pollution
Abstract
如果在数据库连接中加入未验证的输入,可能会让攻击者覆盖请求参数的值。攻击者可能会覆盖现有参数值、注入新的参数或利用直接得到的变量。
Explanation
连接字符串参数污染 (CSPP) 攻击包括将连接字符串参数注入到其他现有参数中。这个漏洞类似于也可能会发生参数污染的 HTTP 环境中的漏洞(可能更广为人知)。然而,它可能还适用于其他地方,比如数据库连接字符串。如果应用程序没有正确地检查用户输入,则恶意用户可能会破坏应用程序的逻辑,以执行从窃取凭证到检索整个数据库等各种攻击。如果再向应用程序提交其他参数,且这些参数与现有参数的名称相同,则数据库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将它们连接在一起

这取决于所使用的驱动程序、数据库类型乃至 API 的使用方法。


示例 1:以下代码使用 HTTP 请求中的输入来连接到数据库:


...
password := request.FormValue("db_pass")
db, err := sql.Open("mysql", "user:" + password + "@/dbname")
...


在这个例子中,程序员并没有考虑到攻击者可以提供 db_pass 参数,比如:
"xxx@/attackerdb?foo=" 之后连接字符串变为:

"user:xxx@/attackerdb?foo=/dbname"

这样会让应用程序连接到攻击者控制器数据库,让攻击者能够控制哪些数据要传回应用程序。
References
[1] Chema Alonso, Manuel Fernandez, Alejandro Martin and Antonio Guzmán Connection String Parameter Pollution Attacks
desc.dataflow.golang.connection_string_parameter_pollution
Abstract
如果在数据库连接中加入未经验证的输入,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
连接字符串参数污染 (CSPP) 攻击包括将连接字符串参数注入到其他现有的参数中。 这个漏洞类似于也可能会发生参数污染的 HTTP 环境中的漏洞(可能更广为人知)。 然而,它可能还适用于其他地方,比如数据库连接字符串。 如果应用程序没有正确地检查用户输入,则恶意用户可能会破坏应用程序的逻辑,进行从窃取凭证到检索整个数据库等各种攻击。 在向应用程序提交额外参数时,如果这些参数与现有参数的名称相同,则数据库连接可能会产生下列某种反应:

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将它们连接在一起

这可能取决于所使用的驱动程序、数据库类型乃至 API 的使用方法。

示例 1: 下面的代码使用 HTTP 请求中的输入来连接到数据库:


username = req.field('username')
password = req.field('password')
...
client = MongoClient('mongodb://%s:%s@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=true' % (username, password))
...


在这个例子中,程序员并没有考虑到攻击者可以提供 password 参数,比如:
“myPassword@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=false&”,于是连接字符串变为(假定用户名为“scott”):

“mongodb://scott:myPassword@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=false&@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=true”

这会导致“@aMongoDBInstance.com/?ssl=true”被视为附加的无效参数,从而有效地忽略“ssl=true”并连接到未加密的数据库。
References
[1] Chema Alonso, Manuel Fernandez, Alejandro Martin and Antonio Guzmán Connection String Parameter Pollution Attacks
desc.dataflow.python.connection_string_parameter_pollution
Abstract
如果在数据库连接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
连接字符串参数污染 (CSPP) 攻击包括将连接字符串参数注入到其他现有的参数中。这个漏洞类似于也可能会发生参数污染的 HTTP 环境中的漏洞(可能更广为人知)。然而,它可能还适用于其他地方,比如数据库连接字符串的。如果应用程序没有正确地检查用户输入,则恶意用户可能会破坏应用程序的逻辑,进行各种攻击,从窃取凭证到检索整个数据库。如果再向应用程序提交参数,并且如果这些参数与现有参数的名称相同,则数据库连接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

这可能取决于所使用的驱动程序、数据库类型乃至 API 的使用方法。

例 1:下面的代码使用 HTTP 请求中的输入来连接到数据库:


hostname = req.params['host'] #gets POST parameter 'host'
...
conn = PG::Connection.new("connect_timeout=20 dbname=app_development user=#{user} password=#{password} host=#{hostname}")
...


在这个例子中,程序员并没有考虑到攻击者可以提供 host 参数,比如:
“myevilsite.com%20port%3D4444%20sslmode%3Ddisable”,于是连接字符串变为(假定用户名为“scott”,密码为“5up3RS3kR3t”):

"dbname=app_development user=scott password=5up3RS3kR3t host=myevilsite.com port=4444 sslmode=disable"

这将在端口 4444 上查找“myevilsite.com”并连接至此网站,禁用 SSL。这意味着攻击者可能会窃取“scott”用户的凭证,然后使用此凭证在用户的机器和真正的数据库之间进行中间人攻击,或者只登录到真正的数据库并直接对数据库执行查询。
References
[1] Chema Alonso, Manuel Fernandez, Alejandro Martin and Antonio Guzmán Connection String Parameter Pollution Attacks
[2] Eric P. Maurice A New Threat To Web Applications: Connection String Parameter Pollution (CSPP)
desc.dataflow.ruby.connection_string_parameter_pollution
Abstract
构建含有用户输入的内容提供商查询指令会让攻击者能够访问未经授权的记录。
Explanation
Query string injection 漏洞会在以下情况下发生:

1. 数据从一个不可信赖的数据源进入程序。



2. 数据用于动态地构造一个内容提供商查询 URI。



Android 内容提供商支持开发人员不使用 SQL 而仅通过构建内容提供商 URI 来编写查询。内容供应商查询 URI 易受注入攻击,因此开发人员应避免在未确保元字符得到正确验证或编码的情况下,使用带有受污染数据输入的字符串串联来构建 URI。

例 1: 假定有个应用程序在 URI 上暴露了多个内容提供商:

content://my.authority/messagescontent://my.authority/messages/123content://my.authority/messages/deleted

如果开发人员构建了查询 URI 串联字符串,那么攻击者将能够在路径或其他 URI 元字符中添加改变查询意义的斜线。在以下代码段中,攻击者可以通过提供带有 deleted 值的 msgId 代码来调用 content://my.authority/messages/deleted


// "msgId" is submitted by users
Uri dataUri = Uri.parse(WeatherContentProvider.CONTENT_URI + "/" + msgId);
Cursor wCursor1 = getContentResolver().query(dataUri, null, null, null, null);
desc.dataflow.java.content_provider_uri_injection
Abstract
程序使用未经验证的用户输入加载 SWF 文件,这会导致特定 Flash 应用程序能够引用和执行任何内容。
Explanation
Flash API 提供了可将远程 SWF 文件加载到现有执行环境的接口。虽然跨域策略只允许加载可信赖的域列表中的 SWF 文件,但所定义的跨域策略通常都过于宽松。如果允许使用不可信赖的用户输入来定义要加载的 SWF 文件,则会导致特定应用程序能够引用和执行任何内容,从而受到 cross-site flashing 攻击。

Cross-site flashing 漏洞会在以下情况中出现:

1. 数据从一个不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据用于加载远程 SWF 文件。
示例:以下代码会将已加载的 SWF 文件中的一个参数值作为用于加载远程 SWF 文件的 URL。


...
var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var url:String = String(params["url"]);
var ldr:Loader = new Loader();
var urlReq:URLRequest = new URLRequest(url);
ldr.load(urlReq);
...
References
[1] Peleus Uhley Creating more secure SWF web applications
[2] Matt Wood and Prajakta Jagdale Auditing Adobe Flash through Static Analysis
desc.dataflow.actionscript.cross_site_flashing
Abstract
向一个 Web 浏览器发送未经验证的数据会导致该浏览器执行恶意代码。
Explanation
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) 漏洞会在以下情况下发生:

1.数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入 Web 应用程序。对于人工智能 (AI),不可信赖的数据源通常是 AI 系统返回的响应。对于 Reflected XSS,通常是一个 Web 请求。


2.未经验证但包含在动态内容中的数据将传送给 Web 用户。

传送到 Web 浏览器的恶意内容通常采用 JavaScript 片段的形式,但也可能会包含一些 HTML、Flash 或者其他任意一种可以被浏览器执行的代码。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。虽然攻击不像其他形式的 XSS 那样简单,但 AI 模型的用户输入和响应的不可预测性意味着永远不应将这些响应视为安全的。

示例 1:以下 Python 代码从 OpenAI 聊天完成模型 message 检索响应,并将其显示给用户。


client = openai.OpenAI()
res = client.chat.completions.create(...)

message = res.choices[0].message.content

self.writeln(f"<p>{message}<\p>")


只要模型的响应仅包含字母数字字符,此示例中的代码将会按预期运行。但是,如果响应中包含未编码的 HTML 元字符,则可能发生 XSS。例如,对以下提示“请准确重复以下语句‘<script>alert(1);</script>’”的响应可能返回 XSS 概念验证,具体取决于所使用的模型和上下文。
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[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 complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, 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 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.python.cross_site_scripting_ai
Abstract
向 Web 浏览器发送未经验证的数据可能导致某些浏览器执行恶意代码。
Explanation
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1.数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入 Web 应用程序。对于 Reflected XSS,不可信赖的数据源通常为 Web 请求,而对于 Persisted(也称为 Stored)XSS,该数据源通常为数据库或其他后端数据存储。


2.未经验证但包含在动态内容中的数据将传送给 Web 用户。

传送到 Web 浏览器的恶意内容通常采用 JavaScript 片段的形式,但也可能会包含一些 HTML、Flash 或者其他任意一种可以被浏览器执行的代码。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。

为了让浏览器将响应呈现为 HTML 或者可执行脚本的其他文档,必须指定text/htmlMIME 类型。因此,仅当响应使用此 MIME 类型或者使用的任何其他类型同样强制浏览器将响应呈现为 HTML 或可执行 SVG 图像 (image/svg+xml) 和 XML 文档 (application/xml) 等脚本的其他文档时,才有可能使用 XSS。

大多数现代浏览器不会呈现 HTML,也不会在为响应提供 application/octet-stream 等 MIME 类型时执行脚本。但是,Internet Explorer 等某些浏览器可执行称为 Content Sniffing 的内容。Content Sniffing 涉及到忽略提供的 MIME 类型并尝试根据响应的内容推断正确的 MIME 类型。
但是,值得注意的是,MIME 类型的text/html是可能导致 XSS 漏洞的唯一 MIME 类型。可执行 SVG 图像 (image/svg+xml) 和 XML 文档 (application/xml) 等脚本的其他文档可能导致 XSS 漏洞,无论浏览器是否执行 Content Sniffing 都是如此。

因此,<html><body><script>alert(1)</script></body></html> 等响应可能呈现为 HTML,即使其 content-type 标头设置为 application/octet-stream, multipart-mixed 等也是如此。

示例 1:以下 JAX-RS 方法反映 application/octet-stream 响应中的用户数据。


@RestController
public class SomeResource {
@RequestMapping(value = "/test", produces = {MediaType.APPLICATION_OCTET_STREAM_VALUE})
public String response5(@RequestParam(value="name") String name){
return name;
}
}


如果攻击者所发送请求的 name参数设置为 <html><body><script>alert(1)</script></body></html>,则服务器将生成以下响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 51
Content-Type: application/octet-stream
Connection: Closed

<html><body><script>alert(1)</script></body></html>


尽管响应明确声明应该将其视为 JSON 文档,但旧浏览器仍可能尝试将其呈现为 HTML 文档,使其容易受到 Cross-Site Scripting 攻击。
References
[1] X-Content-Type-Options Mozilla
[2] MIME Type Detection in Windows Internet Explorer Microsoft
[3] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[4] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[5] Tongbo Luo, Hao Hao, Wenliang Du, Yifei Wang, and Heng Yin Attacks on WebView in the Android System
[6] Erika Chin and David Wagner Bifocals: Analyzing WebView Vulnerabilities in Android Applications
[7] INJECT-3: XML and HTML generation requires care Oracle
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[11] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[12] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[13] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 82, CWE ID 83, CWE ID 87, CWE ID 692
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[17] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[18] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[19] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[20] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[21] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[22] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[23] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[24] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[32] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[33] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[43] 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
[44] 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
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.java.cross_site_scripting_content_sniffing
Abstract
向 Web 浏览器发送未经验证的数据可能导致某些浏览器执行恶意代码。
Explanation
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1.数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入 Web 应用程序。对于 Reflected XSS,不可信赖的数据源通常为 Web 请求,而对于 Persisted(也称为 Stored)XSS,该数据源通常为数据库或其他后端数据存储。


2.未经验证但包含在动态内容中的数据将传送给 Web 用户。

传送到 Web 浏览器的恶意内容通常采用 JavaScript 片段的形式,但也可能会包含一些 HTML、Flash 或者其他任意一种可以被浏览器执行的代码。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。

为了让浏览器将响应呈现为 HTML 或者可执行脚本的其他文档,必须指定 text/html MIME 类型。因此,仅当响应使用此 MIME 类型或者使用的任何其他类型同样强制浏览器将响应呈现为 HTML 或可执行 SVG 图像 (image/svg+xml) 和 XML 文档 (application/xml) 等脚本的其他文档时,才有可能使用 XSS。

大多数现代浏览器不会呈现 HTML,也不会在为响应提供 application/json 等 MIME 类型时执行脚本。但是,Internet Explorer 等某些浏览器可执行称为 Content Sniffing 的内容。Content Sniffing 涉及到忽略提供的 MIME 类型并尝试根据响应的内容推断正确的 MIME 类型。
但是,值得注意的是,MIME 类型的 text/html 是可能导致 XSS 漏洞的唯一 MIME 类型。可执行 SVG 图像 (image/svg+xml) 和 XML 文档 (application/xml) 等脚本的其他文档可能导致 XSS 漏洞,无论浏览器是否执行 Content Sniffing 都是如此。

因此,<html><body><script>alert(1)</script></body></html> 等响应可能呈现为 HTML,即使其 content-type 标头设置为 application/json 也是如此。

示例 1:以下 AWS Lambda 函数反映了 application/json 响应中的用户数据。


def mylambda_handler(event, context):
name = event['name']
response = {
"statusCode": 200,
"body": "{'name': name}",
"headers": {
'Content-Type': 'application/json',
}
}
return response


如果攻击者所发送请求的 name 参数设置为 <html><body><script>alert(1)</script></body></html>,则服务器将生成以下响应:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 88
Content-Type: application/json
Connection: Closed

{'name': '<html><body><script>alert(1)</script></body></html>'}


尽管响应明确声明应该将其视为 JSON 文档,但旧浏览器仍可能尝试将其呈现为 HTML 文档,使其容易受到 Cross-Site Scripting 攻击。
References
[1] X-Content-Type-Options Mozilla
[2] MIME Type Detection in Windows Internet Explorer Microsoft
[3] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[4] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[5] Tongbo Luo, Hao Hao, Wenliang Du, Yifei Wang, and Heng Yin Attacks on WebView in the Android System
[6] Erika Chin and David Wagner Bifocals: Analyzing WebView Vulnerabilities in Android Applications
[7] INJECT-3: XML and HTML generation requires care Oracle
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[11] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[12] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[13] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 82, CWE ID 83, CWE ID 87, CWE ID 692
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[17] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[18] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[19] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[20] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[21] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[22] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[23] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[24] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[32] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[33] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[43] 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
[44] 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
[45] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[67] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[68] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.python.cross_site_scripting_content_sniffing
Abstract
向一个 Web 浏览器发送未经验证的数据会导致该浏览器执行恶意代码。
Explanation
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) 漏洞在以下情况下发生:

1. 数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入 Web 应用程序。对于基于 DOM 的 XSS,将从 URL 参数或浏览器中的其他值读取数据,并使用客户端代码将其重新写入该页面。对于 Reflected XSS,不可信赖的数据源通常为 Web 请求,而对于 Persisted(也称为 Stored)XSS,该数据源通常为数据库或其他后端数据存储。


2.未经验证但包含在动态内容中的数据将传送给 Web 用户。对于基于 DOM 的 XSS,任何时候当受害人的浏览器解析 HTML 页面时,恶意内容都将作为 DOM(文档对象模型)创建的一部分执行。

传送到 Web 浏览器的恶意内容通常采用 JavaScript 片段的形式,但也可能会包含一些 HTML、Flash 或者其他任意一种可以被浏览器执行的代码。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。

示例:下面的 JavaScript 代码片段可从 HTTP 请求中读取雇员 ID eid,并将其显示给用户。


String queryString = Window.Location.getQueryString();
int pos = queryString.indexOf("eid=")+4;
HTML output = new HTML();
output.setHTML(queryString.substring(pos, queryString.length()));


如果 eid 只包含标准的字母或数字文本,这个例子中的代码就能正确运行。如果 eid 中的某个值包含元字符或源代码,则 Web 浏览器就会在显示 HTTP 响应时执行该代码。

起初,这个例子似乎是不会轻易遭受攻击的。毕竟,有谁会输入导致恶意代码在自己电脑上运行的 URL 呢?真正的危险在于攻击者会创建恶意的 URL,然后采用电子邮件或社交工程的欺骗手段诱使受害者访问此 URL 的链接。当受害者单击这个链接时,他们不知不觉地通过易受攻击的网络应用程序,将恶意内容带到了自己的电脑中。这种对易受攻击的 Web 应用程序进行盗取的机制通常被称为反射式 XSS。


正如例子中所显示的,XSS 漏洞是由于 HTTP 响应中包含了未验证的数据代码而引起的。受害者遭受 XSS 攻击的途径有三种:

- 系统从 HTTP 请求中直接读取数据,并在 HTTP 响应中返回数据。当攻击者诱使用户为易受攻击的 Web 应用程序提供危险内容,而这些危险内容随后会反馈给用户并在 Web 浏览器中执行时,就会发生 Reflected XSS 漏洞利用。发送恶意内容最常用的方法是,将恶意内容作为一个参数包含在公开发布或通过电子邮件直接发送给受害者的 URL 中。以这种手段构造的 URL 已成为多种网络钓鱼阴谋的核心,攻击者会借此诱骗受害者访问指向易受攻击站点的 URL。该站点将攻击者的内容反馈给受害者后,便会执行这些内容,接下来会将用户计算机中的各种私密信息(比如可能包含会话信息的 Cookie)传输给攻击者,或者执行其他恶意活动。

— 应用程序将危险数据存储在数据库或其他可信赖的数据存储器中。这些危险数据随后会被回写到应用程序中,并包含在动态内容中。Persistent XSS 盗取发生在如下情况:攻击者将危险内容注入到数据存储器中,且该存储器之后会被读取并包含在动态内容中。从攻击者的角度看,注入恶意内容的最佳位置莫过于一个面向许多用户,尤其是相关用户显示的区域。相关用户通常在应用程序中具备较高的特权,或相互之间交换敏感数据,这些数据对攻击者来说有利用价值。如果某一个用户执行了恶意内容,攻击者就有可能以该用户的名义执行某些需要特权的操作,或者获得该用户个人所有的敏感数据的访问权限。

— 应用程序之外的数据源将危险数据储存在一个数据库或其他数据存储器中,随后这些危险数据被当作可信赖的数据回写到应用程序中,并储存在动态内容中。
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] INJECT-3: XML and HTML generation requires care Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[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 integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[16] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[17] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[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 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[39] 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
[40] 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
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.java.cross_site_scripting_dom
Abstract
向一个 Web 浏览器发送未经验证的数据会导致该浏览器执行恶意代码。
Explanation
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) 漏洞在以下情况下发生:

1. 数据通过一个不可信赖的数据源进入 Web 应用程序。对于基于 DOM 的 XSS,将从 URL 参数或浏览器中的其他值读取数据,并使用客户端代码将其重新写入该页面。对于 Reflected XSS,不可信赖的数据源通常为 Web 请求,而对于 Persisted(也称为 Stored)XSS,该数据源通常为数据库或其他后端数据存储。


2.未经验证但包含在动态内容中的数据将传送给 Web 用户。对于基于 DOM 的 XSS,任何时候当受害人的浏览器解析 HTML 页面时,恶意内容都将作为 DOM(文档对象模型)创建的一部分执行。

传送到 Web 浏览器的恶意内容通常采用 JavaScript 片段的形式,但也可能会包含一些 HTML、Flash 或者其他任意一种可以被浏览器执行的代码。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。

例 1:下面的 JavaScript 代码片段可从 URL 中读取雇员 ID eid,并将其显示给用户。


<SCRIPT>
var pos=document.URL.indexOf("eid=")+4;
document.write(document.URL.substring(pos,document.URL.length));
</SCRIPT>

示例 2:考虑使用 HTML 表单:


<div id="myDiv">
Employee ID: <input type="text" id="eid"><br>
...
<button>Show results</button>
</div>
<div id="resultsDiv">
...
</div>


下面的 jQuery 代码片段可从表单中读取雇员 ID,并将其显示给用户。


$(document).ready(function(){
$("#myDiv").on("click", "button", function(){
var eid = $("#eid").val();
$("resultsDiv").append(eid);
...
});
});


如果文本输入中 ID 为 eid 的雇员 ID 仅包含标准字母数字文本,则这些代码示例可正确运行。如果 eid 中的某个值包含元字符或源代码,则 Web 浏览器就会在显示 HTTP 响应时执行该代码。

示例 3:以下代码显示了 React 应用程序中基于 DOM 的 XSS 示例:


let element = JSON.parse(getUntrustedInput());
ReactDOM.render(<App>
{element}
</App>);


Example 3 中,如果攻击者可以控制从 getUntrustedInput() 检索到的整个 JSON 对象,他们可能就能够使 React 将 element 呈现为一个组件,从而可以使用他们自己控制的值传递具有 dangerouslySetInnerHTML 的对象,这是一种典型的 Cross-Site Scripting 攻击。

最初,这些代码看起来似乎不会轻易遭受攻击。毕竟,有谁会输入包含可在自己电脑上运行的恶意代码的内容呢?真正的危险在于攻击者会创建恶意的 URL,然后采用电子邮件或社交工程的欺骗手段诱使受害者访问此 URL 的链接。当受害者单击这个链接时,他们不知不觉地通过易受攻击的网络应用程序,将恶意内容带到了自己的电脑中。这种对易受攻击的 Web 应用程序进行盗取的机制通常被称为反射式 XSS。

正如例子中所显示的,XSS 漏洞是由于 HTTP 响应中包含了未验证的数据代码而引起的。受害者遭受 XSS 攻击的途径有三种:

- 系统从 HTTP 请求中直接读取数据,并在 HTTP 响应中返回数据。当攻击者诱使用户为易受攻击的 Web 应用程序提供危险内容,而这些危险内容随后会反馈给用户并在 Web 浏览器中执行时,就会发生 Reflected XSS 漏洞利用。发送恶意内容最常用的方法是,将恶意内容作为一个参数包含在公开发布或通过电子邮件直接发送给受害者的 URL 中。以这种手段构造的 URL 已成为多种网络钓鱼阴谋的核心,攻击者会借此诱骗受害者访问指向易受攻击站点的 URL。该站点将攻击者的内容反馈给受害者后,便会执行这些内容,接下来会将用户计算机中的各种私密信息(比如可能包含会话信息的 Cookie)传输给攻击者,或者执行其他恶意活动。

— 应用程序将危险数据存储在数据库或其他可信赖的数据存储器中。这些危险数据随后会被回写到应用程序中,并包含在动态内容中。Persistent XSS 盗取发生在如下情况:攻击者将危险内容注入到数据存储器中,且该存储器之后会被读取并包含在动态内容中。从攻击者的角度看,注入恶意内容的最佳位置莫过于一个面向许多用户,尤其是相关用户显示的区域。相关用户通常在应用程序中具备较高的特权,或相互之间交换敏感数据,这些数据对攻击者来说有利用价值。如果某一个用户执行了恶意内容,攻击者就有可能以该用户的名义执行某些需要特权的操作,或者获得该用户个人所有的敏感数据的访问权限。

— 应用程序之外的数据源将危险数据储存在一个数据库或其他数据存储器中,随后这些危险数据被当作可信赖的数据回写到应用程序中,并储存在动态内容中。
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] XSS via a spoofed React element Daniel LeCheminant
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[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 integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 80
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[16] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[17] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[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 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[39] 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
[40] 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
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.dataflow.javascript.cross_site_scripting_dom
Abstract
向一个 Web 浏览器发送未经验证的数据会导致该浏览器执行恶意代码。配置设置可以最大程度地降低 Cross-Site Scripting 漏洞暴露风险。
Explanation
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) 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 Web 请求或数据库。

2.未经验证但包含在动态内容中的数据将传送给 Web 用户。

传送到 Web 浏览器的恶意内容通常采用 JavaScript 片段的形式,但也可能会包含一些 HTML、Flash 或者其他任意一种可以被浏览器执行的代码。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。

由于 XSS 漏洞攻击往往需要与攻击者控制的恶意站点通信或重定向到攻击者控制的恶意站点,因此注入对其他域内容的引用的能力是许多漏洞利用不可或缺的重要环节。AntiSamy 可以配置为阻止链接到外部域,从而降低攻击者可能通过 XSS 攻击造成的损害。但是,此保护只能解决部分问题,并不能彻底缓解 XSS 漏洞带来的威胁。

示例 1:以下 AntiSamy 配置条目允许链接到运行应用程序的域之外的 URL。

<attribute name="href" onInvalid="filterTag">
<regexp-list>
<regexp name="onsiteURL"/>
<regexp name="offsiteURL"/>
</regexp-list>
</attribute>
References
[1] Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers CERT
[2] HTML 4.01 Specification W3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[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 integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 79, CWE ID 82, CWE ID 83, CWE ID 87, CWE ID 692
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [2] CWE ID 079
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [1] CWE ID 079
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [2] CWE ID 079
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [2] CWE ID 079
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [2] CWE ID 079
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167, CCI-001310
[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 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A4 Cross Site Scripting
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A1 Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A2 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A7 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.3 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.7
[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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 079
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3580 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002490 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Scripting (WASC-08)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Scripting
desc.config.java.xss_external_links