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
方法调用可更改访问说明符。
Explanation
AccessibleObject API 允许程序员绕过由 Java 访问说明符提供的 access control 检查。特别是它让程序员能够允许反映对象绕过 Java access control,并反过来更改私有字段或调用私有方法、行为,这些通常情况下都是不允许的。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-001084, CCI-001310, CCI-002165
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change (P1), SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change, SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.2 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.4.4 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1, MASVS-CODE-4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
[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-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.dataflow.java.access_specifier_manipulation
Abstract
该方法调用可更改或变通访问说明符。
Explanation
send 函数及其变体使得程序员可以变通函数上的 Ruby 访问说明符。尤其是,它允许程序员访问私有和受保护的字段和函数,这是通常禁止的行为。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-001084, CCI-001310, CCI-002165
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1), CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change (P1), SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement, CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change, SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.2 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.4.4 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1, MASVS-CODE-4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
[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-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.structural.ruby.access_specifier_manipulation
Abstract
可创建书签的 Oracle ADF Faces 视图缺少 URL 参数转换器。
Explanation
在常规 JSF 应用程序中,使用 UI 组件指定的转换器和验证器来转换和验证值。提交页面时会自动进行转换和验证。Fusion 应用程序中可创建书签的视图不会执行页面提交,因此默认情况下不会执行类似的转换或验证。

示例 1:以下配置文件代码段显示了配置为不执行 paramName URL 参数的转换或验证的可创建书签的示例视图。


...
<bookmark>
<method>#{paramHandler.handleParams}</method>
<url-parameter>
<name>paramName</name>
<value>#{requestScope.paramName}</value>
</url-parameter>
</bookmark>
...
References
[1] Oracle(R) Fusion Middleware Fusion Developer's Guide for Oracle Application Development Framework, 15.2.3.Bookmarking View Activities
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 20
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[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 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] 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)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 2.2.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.config.java.adf_bad_practices_missing_url_parameter_converter
Abstract
从一个不可信赖的数据源或在不可信赖的环境中加载类,可能会导致应用程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Android 类加载劫持漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者可以更改程序在其中搜索来加载类的目录的名称,从而指向他们有控制权的某个目录的路径:攻击者明确控制了将在其中搜索类的路径。

- 攻击者可以更改用于加载类的环境:攻击者间接控制了路径名的含义。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,即攻击者有可能控制在其中搜索加载类的目录。这种类型的 Android Class Loading Hijacking 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。



2. 数据用作一个或部分字符串,代表在其中搜索要加载的类的库目录。



3. 通过从库路径执行代码,应用程序授予攻击者在一般情况下无法获得的权限或能力。

例 1:以下代码使用用户可更改的 userClassPath,来确定在其中搜索要加载的类的目录。


...
productCategory = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("userClassPath");
DexClassLoader dexClassLoader = new DexClassLoader(productCategory, optimizedDexOutputPath.getAbsolutePath(), null, getClassLoader());
...


此代码允许攻击者通过将 userClassPath 的结果修改为指向他们控制的不同路径,以提升的应用程序权限加载库并可能执行任意代码。因为程序不验证从环境读取的值,如果攻击者能够控制 userClassPath 的值,那么他们就可以欺骗应用程序指向他们控制的目录,从而使用与原始应用程序一样的权限加载他们已经定义的类。

例 2:以下代码使用用户可更改的 userOutput,来确定应将优化的 DEX 文件写入的目录。


...
productCategory = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("userOutput");
DexClassLoader dexClassLoader = new DexClassLoader(sanitizedPath, productCategory, null, getClassLoader());
...



此代码允许攻击者指定优化的 DEX 文件 (ODEX) 的输出目录。这样,恶意用户便可以将 userOutput 的值更改为他们控制的目录,例如外部存储。一旦达到这一目的,便可以很轻松地将输出的 ODEX 文件替换为恶意 ODEX 文件,并使用与原始应用程序一样的权限加以执行。
References
[1] Android Class Loading Hijacking Symantec
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 114
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[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), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, 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 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 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
desc.dataflow.java.android_class_loading_hijacking
Abstract
为了防止未经检验的输入产生漏洞,接收模型的 ASP.NET Web API 操作方法应检查模型是否通过了验证。
Explanation
在 ASP.NET Web API 服务中,未经验证的输入是导致漏洞产生的首要原因之一。未经检验的输入会导致出现各种漏洞,包括 Cross-Site Scripting、Process Control、Access Control 和 SQL Injection。尽管 ASP.NET Web API 服务通常情况下不容易受到 Memory Corruption 攻击,但是如果 ASP.NET Web API 服务调用未执行数组边界检查的本地代码,攻击者就可能会利用 ASP.NET Web API 服务中的 Input Validation 缺陷发起 Buffer Overflow 攻击。

为了防止此类攻击,请执行以下操作:
1. 使用验证属性通过编程将模型绑定对象参数的参数或成员的验证检查注释为 ASP.NET Web API 服务操作。
2. 使用 ModelState.IsValid 检查模型是否通过验证。
References
[1] Jon Galloway, Phil Haack, Brad Wilson, K. Scott Allen Professional ASP.NET MVC 4 Wrox Press
[2] Model Validation Microsoft ASP.NET Site
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 20
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] 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)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[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
[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 3.1 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 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.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 020
[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 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.dotnet.asp_dotnet_bad_practices_unvalidated_web_api_model
Abstract
攻击者可以设置可能会危及系统完整性的任意 bean 属性。
Explanation
Bean 属性的名称和值在填充任何 bean 之前都需要进行验证。Bean 填充功能允许开发人员设置 bean 属性或嵌套属性。攻击者可以利用此功能访问特殊的 bean 属性,例如 class.classLoader,此类属性将允许攻击者覆盖系统属性并可能会执行任意代码。

示例:下列代码将会设置用户控制的 bean 属性,而不会正确验证属性名称或值:


String prop = request.getParameter('prop');
String value = request.getParameter('value');
HashMap properties = new HashMap();
properties.put(prop, value);
BeanUtils.populate(user, properties);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[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 partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 15
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] 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
[27] 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
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.bean_manipulation
Abstract
在一块分配的内存边界之外写入数据可能会破坏数据、造成程序崩溃或导致恶意代码的执行。
Explanation
Buffer overflow 可能是人们最熟悉的一种软件安全漏洞。虽然绝大多数软件开发者都知道什么是 Buffer overflow 漏洞,但是无论是对继承下来的或是新开发的应用程序来说,Buffer overflow 攻击仍然是一种最常见的攻击形式。对于这个问题出现的原因,一方面是造成 buffer overflow 漏洞的方式有很多种,另一方面是用于防止 buffer overflow 的技术也容易出错。

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

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

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

Buffer overflow 漏洞通常出现在以下代码中:

— 依靠外部的数据来控制行为的代码。

— 受数据属性影响的代码,该数据在代码的临接范围之外执行。

— 代码过于复杂,以致于程序员无法准确预测它的行为。



以下例子分别演示了上面三种情况。

例 1.a:以下示例代码显示了简单的 buffer overflow,它通常由第一种情况所导致,即依靠外部数据来控制行为的代码。该代码使用 gets() 函数将一个任意大小的数据读取到堆栈缓冲区中。因为没有什么方法可以限制该函数读取数据的量,所以代码的安全性就依赖于用户始终输入比 BUFSIZE 少的字符数量。


...
char buf[BUFSIZE];
gets(buf);
...
例 1.b:这一例子表明模仿 C++ 中 gets() 函数的不安全行为是如此的简单,只要通过使用 >> 运算符将输入读取到 char[] 字符串中。


...
char buf[BUFSIZE];
cin >> (buf);
...
例 2:虽然本例中的代码也是依赖于用户输入来控制代码行为,但是它通过使用边界内存复制函数 memcpy() 增加了一个间接级。该函数接受一个目标缓冲区、一个起始缓冲区和要复制的字节数。虽然输入缓冲区由 read() 的边界调用填充,但是 memcpy() 复制的字节数需要由用户指定。


...
char buf[64], in[MAX_SIZE];
printf("Enter buffer contents:\n");
read(0, in, MAX_SIZE-1);
printf("Bytes to copy:\n");
scanf("%d", &bytes);
memcpy(buf, in, bytes);
...


注:该类型的 buffer overflow 漏洞(程序可读取数据,然后对剩余数据随后进行的内存操作中的一个数值给予信任)已在图像、音频和其他的文件处理库中频繁地出现。

例 3:这是一个关于第二种情况的例子,代码受未在本地校验的数据属性的影响。在本例中,名为 lccopy() 的函数将一个字符串作为其变量,然后返回一个堆分配字符串副本,并将该字符串的所有大写字母转化成了小写字母。因为该函数认为 str 总是比 BUFSIZE 小,所以它不会对输入执行任何边界检查。如果攻击者避开对调用 lccopy() 代码的检查,或者如果更改代码,使得程序员对 str 长度的原有假设与实际不符,那么 lccopy() 就会通过无边界调用 strcpy() 溢出 buf


char *lccopy(const char *str) {
char buf[BUFSIZE];
char *p;

strcpy(buf, str);
for (p = buf; *p; p++) {
if (isupper(*p)) {
*p = tolower(*p);
}
}
return strdup(buf);
}
示例 4:以下代码演示了第三种情况,代码非常复杂,无法轻松预测其行为。该代码来自通用的 libPNG 图像解码器,众多应用程序使用的都是该解码器。

该代码似乎可以安全地执行边界检查,因为它检测变量长度的大小,该变量长度会在之后用来控制 png_crc_read() 复制的数据量。然而,在测试长度前,该代码会立即对 png_ptr->mode 执行检查,如果检查失败,便会发出一个警告,然后会继续进行处理。因为 length 测试在 else if 块中进行,如果针对该代码的首次测试失败,那么就不会再测试 length,而将其盲目地用于调用 png_crc_read(),因此很容易引起堆栈 Buffer Overflow。

虽然本例中的代码不是我们所遇见的代码中最复杂的,但是它足以说明为什么要尽可能地降低执行内存操作代码的复杂度。


if (!(png_ptr->mode & PNG_HAVE_PLTE)) {
/* Should be an error, but we can cope with it */
png_warning(png_ptr, "Missing PLTE before tRNS");
}
else if (length > (png_uint_32)png_ptr->num_palette) {
png_warning(png_ptr, "Incorrect tRNS chunk length");
png_crc_finish(png_ptr, length);
return;
}
...
png_crc_read(png_ptr, readbuf, (png_size_t)length);
例 5:本例同样演示了第三种情况,程序过于复杂,使其暴露出 buffer overflow 的问题。在这种情况下,问题出现的原因在于其中某个函数的接口不明确,而不是代码结构(同上一个例子中描述的情况一样)。

getUserInfo() 函数采用一个定义为多字节字符串的用户名和一个指向用户信息结构的指针,这一结构由该用户的相关信息填充。因为 Windows authentication 中的用户名使用 Unicode,所以 username 参数首先要从多字节字符串转换成 Unicode 字符串。然后,这个函数便会错误地将 unicodeUser 的长度以字节形式而不是字符形式传递出去。调用 MultiByteToWideChar() 可能会把 (UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR) 宽字符或者
(UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR)*sizeof(WCHAR) 字节,写到 unicodeUser 数组,该数组仅分配了 (UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR) 个字节。如果 username 字符串包含了多于 UNLEN 的字符,那么调用 MultiByteToWideChar() 将会溢出 unicodeUser 缓冲区。


void getUserInfo(char *username, struct _USER_INFO_2 info){
WCHAR unicodeUser[UNLEN+1];
MultiByteToWideChar(CP_ACP, 0, username, -1,
unicodeUser, sizeof(unicodeUser));
NetUserGetInfo(NULL, unicodeUser, 2, (LPBYTE *)&info);
}
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] J. Koziol et al. The Shellcoder's Handbook: Discovering and Exploiting Security Holes John Wiley & Sons
[4] About Strsafe.h Microsoft
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[11] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 120, CWE ID 129, CWE ID 131, CWE ID 787
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [3] CWE ID 020, [12] CWE ID 787
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [3] CWE ID 020, [2] CWE ID 787
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [1] CWE ID 787, [4] CWE ID 020, [17] CWE ID 119
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [1] CWE ID 787, [4] CWE ID 020, [19] CWE ID 119
[17] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [1] CWE ID 787, [6] CWE ID 020, [17] CWE ID 119
[18] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[19] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[20] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[21] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1, Rule 18-0-5
[22] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[23] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[27] 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), 5.4.1 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.4.2 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.1.2 Build (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 - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[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 6.5.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[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, Control Objective B.3.1.2 - 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 B.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 120, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 129, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 131
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 120, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 131
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Buffer Overflow (WASC-07)
[67] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Buffer Overflow
desc.dataflow.cpp.buffer_overflow
Abstract
该程序使用了界定不当的 format string,允许其在分配的内存边界之外写入数据。这种行为会损坏数据、引起程序崩溃或为恶意代码的执行提供机会。
Explanation
Buffer overflow 可能是人们最熟悉的一种软件安全漏洞。虽然绝大多数软件开发者都知道什么是 Buffer overflow 漏洞,但是无论是对继承下来的或是新开发的应用程序来说,Buffer overflow 攻击仍然是一种最常见的攻击形式。对于这个问题出现的原因,一方面是造成 buffer overflow 漏洞的方式有很多种,另一方面是用于防止 buffer overflow 的技术也容易出错。

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

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

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

在这里,一个结构不良的 format string 会导致程序在分配的内存边界之外写入数据。

示例:以下代码会溢出 c,因为 double 类型需要的空间超过分配给 c 的空间。


void formatString(double d) {
char c;

scanf("%d", &c)
}
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] J. Koziol et al. The Shellcoder's Handbook: Discovering and Exploiting Security Holes John Wiley & Sons
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 134, CWE ID 787
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [12] CWE ID 787
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [2] CWE ID 787
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [1] CWE ID 787
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [1] CWE ID 787
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [1] CWE ID 787
[17] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[18] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[19] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[20] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[22] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.2 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code 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 - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[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, Control Objective B.3.1.2 - 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 B.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 134
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Buffer Overflow (WASC-07)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Buffer Overflow
desc.internal.cpp.buffer_overflow_format_string
Abstract
该程序使用了界定不当的 format string,其中包含一个 %f 或 %F 浮点说明符。特别大的浮点值会导致该程序在分配的内存边界之外写入数据,这会损坏数据、引起程序崩溃或为恶意代码的执行提供机会。
Explanation
Buffer overflow 可能是人们最熟悉的一种软件安全漏洞。虽然绝大多数软件开发者都知道什么是 Buffer overflow 漏洞,但是无论是对继承下来的或是新开发的应用程序来说,Buffer overflow 攻击仍然是一种最常见的攻击形式。对于这个问题出现的原因,一方面是造成 buffer overflow 漏洞的方式有很多种,另一方面是用于防止 buffer overflow 的技术也容易出错。

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

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

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

在这里,一个结构不良的 format string 会导致程序在分配的内存边界之外写入数据。

示例: 以下代码会溢出 buf,因为根据 f 的大小,格式字符串说明符 "%d %.1f ... " 可能会超出分配的内存大小。


void formatString(int x, float f) {
char buf[40];
sprintf(buf, "%d %.1f ... ", x, f);
}
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] J. Koziol et al. The Shellcoder's Handbook: Discovering and Exploiting Security Holes John Wiley & Sons
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 787
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [12] CWE ID 787
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [2] CWE ID 787
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [1] CWE ID 787
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [1] CWE ID 787
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [1] CWE ID 787
[17] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[18] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[19] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[20] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[22] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[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 6.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[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, Control Objective B.3.1.2 - 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 B.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 134
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Buffer Overflow (WASC-07)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Buffer Overflow
desc.internal.cpp.buffer_overflow_format_string_%f_%F
Abstract
该程序在分配的内存边界之外写入数据,这可能会损坏数据、引起程序崩溃或为恶意代码的执行提供机会。
Explanation
Buffer overflow 可能是人们最熟悉的一种软件安全漏洞。虽然绝大多数软件开发者都知道什么是 Buffer overflow 漏洞,但是无论是对继承下来的或是新开发的应用程序来说,Buffer overflow 攻击仍然是一种最常见的攻击形式。对于这个问题出现的原因,一方面是造成 buffer overflow 漏洞的方式有很多种,另一方面是用于防止 buffer overflow 的技术也容易出错。

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

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

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

示例:以下代码包含一个 off-by-one 缓冲区溢出,当 recv 返回的字节数达到最大允许读取的 sizeof(buf) 字节数时,便会发生此溢出。在这种情况下,随后对 buf[nbytes] 的间接引用会将 null 字节写入到所分配内存的边界之外。


void receive(int socket) {
char buf[MAX];
int nbytes = recv(socket, buf, sizeof(buf), 0);
buf[nbytes] = '\0';
...
}
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] J. Koziol et al. The Shellcoder's Handbook: Discovering and Exploiting Security Holes John Wiley & Sons
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 129, CWE ID 131, CWE ID 193, CWE ID 787, CWE ID 805
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [3] CWE ID 020, [12] CWE ID 787
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [3] CWE ID 020, [2] CWE ID 787
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [1] CWE ID 787, [4] CWE ID 020, [17] CWE ID 119
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [1] CWE ID 787, [4] CWE ID 020, [19] CWE ID 119
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [1] CWE ID 787, [6] CWE ID 020, [17] CWE ID 119
[17] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[18] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[19] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[20] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1, Rule 18-0-5
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[22] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[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)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[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, Control Objective B.3.1.2 - 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 B.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 805, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 129, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 131
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 131
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Buffer Overflow (WASC-07)
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Buffer Overflow
desc.internal.cpp.buffer_overflow_off_by_one
Abstract
该程序使用带符号的比较来检查稍后会被视为不带符号的值。这将会导致程序在分配的内存边界之外写入数据,这可能会损坏数据、引起程序崩溃或为恶意代码的执行提供机会。
Explanation
Buffer overflow 可能是人们最熟悉的一种软件安全漏洞。虽然绝大多数软件开发者都知道什么是 Buffer overflow 漏洞,但是无论是对继承下来的或是新开发的应用程序来说,Buffer overflow 攻击仍然是一种最常见的攻击形式。对于这个问题出现的原因,一方面是造成 buffer overflow 漏洞的方式有很多种,另一方面是用于防止 buffer overflow 的技术也容易出错。

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

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

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

示例:以下代码尝试通过检查从 getInputLength() 中读取的不可信的值,验证其是否小于目标缓冲区 output 的大小,来避免 off-by-one buffer overflow。然而,因为 lenMAX 之间比较的是带符号的值,所以如果 len 为负值,在其转换为 memcpy() 不带符号的参数时,将会变成一个超级大的正数。


void TypeConvert() {
char input[MAX];
char output[MAX];

fillBuffer(input);
int len = getInputLength();

if (len <= MAX) {
memcpy(output, input, len);
}
...
}
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] J. Koziol et al. The Shellcoder's Handbook: Discovering and Exploiting Security Holes John Wiley & Sons
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 195, CWE ID 805
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [17] CWE ID 119
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [19] CWE ID 119
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [17] CWE ID 119
[17] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[18] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[19] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[20] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[22] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[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 6.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[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.3.1.2 - 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.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 805
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3550 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3550 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3550 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3550 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3550 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3550 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3550 CAT I, APP3590.1 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Buffer Overflow (WASC-07)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Buffer Overflow
desc.internal.cpp.buffer_overflow_signed_comparison
Abstract
用户控制的数据用作模板引擎的模板,这使得攻击者能够访问模板上下文,并在某些情况下在浏览器中注入和运行恶意代码。
Explanation
模板引擎用于使用动态数据呈现内容。此上下文数据通常由用户控制并通过模板设置格式,以生成 Web 页面、电子邮件等。模板引擎可通过条件、循环等代码构造处理上下文数据,从而允许在模板中使用功能强大的语言表达式来呈现动态内容。如果攻击者能够控制要呈现的模板,他们将能够通过注入表达式来公开上下文数据,并在服务器中运行恶意代码。

示例 1:以下示例显示了如何通过 URL 检索模板并使用模板在 AngularJS 中呈现信息。

function MyController(function($stateParams, $interpolate){
var ctx = { foo : 'bar' };
var interpolated = $interpolate($stateParams.expression);
this.rendered = interpolated(ctx);
...
}


在这种情况下,$stateParams.expression将采用可能受用户控制的数据,并将其作为用于指定上下文的模板进行计算。这又可能会允许恶意用户在浏览器中运行他们想要的代码、检索关于代码运行的上下文的信息、查找有关如何创建应用程序的额外信息,或将此代码转换为 full blown XSS 攻击。
References
[1] AngularJS Security Guide Google
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 95
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 116
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.client_side_template_injection
Abstract
如果使用未验证的用户输入来指定页面中包含的文件路径,会使攻击者能够在服务器中注入恶意代码或查看敏感文件。
Explanation
在以下情况中会发生 Unauthorized Include 漏洞:

1. 数据从一个不可信赖的数据源(最常见的是一个 Web 请求)进入 Web 应用程序。

2. 数据是字符串的一部分,该字符串指明了 <cfinclude> 标签的 template 属性。
示例:以下代码利用来自 Web 表单的输入构造了一条路径,通过这条路径可以找到用来设定用户主页格式的特殊文件。由此可以看出,程序员没有考虑到攻击者可能会提供恶意文件名,如 "../../users/wileyh/malicious",从而导致该应用程序执行攻击者主目录下文件的恶意内容。


<cfinclude template =
"C:\\custom\\templates\\#Form.username#.cfm">


如果攻击者可以指定 <cfinclude> 标签所包含的文件,即表示他们能使应用程序在当前页上包含服务器文件系统中几乎所有文件的内容。这至少会对两个方面产生重大影响。如果攻击者可以在服务器的文件系统上某个位置(如用户的主目录或一个通用的上传目录)进行写入,即表示他们能使应用程序在页面中包含一个恶意文件,并将由服务器执行该文件。即使不具备服务器文件系统的写权限,攻击者通常也能通过指定服务器上某个文件的路径,访问敏感或私人信息。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A3 Malicious File Execution
[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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 6.5.3
[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 3.1 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 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.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cfml.unauthorized_include
Abstract
执行不可信赖资源中的命令,或在不可信赖的环境中执行命令,都会导致程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制了所执行的命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,即攻击者有可能控制所执行命令。这种类型的 Command Injection 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

例 1:下面这段来自系统实用程序的代码根据注册表项 APPHOME 来决定其安装目录,然后根据指定目录的相对路径执行初始化脚本。


...
CALL FUNCTION 'REGISTRY_GET'
EXPORTING
KEY = 'APPHOME'
IMPORTING
VALUE = home.

CONCATENATE home INITCMD INTO cmd.
CALL 'SYSTEM' ID 'COMMAND' FIELD cmd ID 'TAB' FIELD TABL[].
...
Example 1 中的代码可以使攻击者通过修改注册表项 APPHOME 以指向包含恶意版本 INITCMD 的其他路径来提高自己在应用程序中的权限,继而随心所欲地执行命令。由于程序不会验证从注册表中读取的值,因此如果攻击者能够控制注册表项 APPHOME 的值,他们就能欺骗应用程序去运行恶意代码,从而取得系统控制权。

例 2:下面的代码来自一个管理 Web 应用程序,旨在使用户能够使用一个围绕 rman 实用程序的批处理文件封装器来启动 Oracle 数据库备份,然后运行一个 cleanup.bat 脚本来删除一些临时文件。脚本 rmanDB.bat 接受单个命令行参数,该参数指定了要执行的备份类型。由于访问数据库受限,所以应用程序执行备份需要具有较高权限的用户。


...
btype = request->get_form_field( 'backuptype' )
CONCATENATE `/K 'c:\\util\\rmanDB.bat ` btype `&&c:\\util\\cleanup.bat'` INTO cmd.

CALL FUNCTION 'SXPG_COMMAND_EXECUTE_LONG'
EXPORTING
commandname = cmd_exe
long_params = cmd_string
EXCEPTIONS
no_permission = 1
command_not_found = 2
parameters_too_long = 3
security_risk = 4
OTHERS = 5.
...


这里的问题是:程序没有对读取自用户的 backuptype参数进行任何验证。通常情况下 SXPG_COMMAND_EXECUTE_LONG 函数模块不会执行多条命令,但在这种情况下,程序会首先运行 cmd.exe shell,从而可以通过调用一次 CALL 'SYSTEM' 来执行多条命令。在调用该 shell 之后,它即会允许执行用两个与号分隔的多条命令。如果攻击者传递了一个形式为 "&& del c:\\dbms\\*.*" 的字符串,那么应用程序将随程序指定的其他命令一起执行此命令。由于该应用程序的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备与数据库进行交互所需的权限,这就意味着攻击者注入的任何命令都将通过这些权限得以运行。

示例 3:下面的代码来自一个 Web 应用程序,用户可通过该应用程序提供的界面在系统上更新他们的密码。在某些网络环境中更新密码时,其中的一个步骤就是在 /var/yp 目录中运行 make 命令。


...
MOVE 'make' to cmd.
CALL 'SYSTEM' ID 'COMMAND' FIELD cmd ID 'TAB' FIELD TABL[].
...


这里的问题在于程序没有在它的构造中指定一个绝对路径,并且没能在执行 CALL 'SYSTEM' 调用前清除它的环境变量。如果攻击者能够修改 $PATH 变量,把它指向名为 make 恶意二进制代码,程序就会在其指定的环境下执行,然后加载该恶意二进制代码,而非原本期望的代码。由于应用程序自身的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备执行系统操作所需的权限,这意味着攻击者会利用这些权限执行自己的 make,从而可能导致攻击者完全控制系统。
References
[1] SAP OSS notes 677435, 686765, 866732, 854060, 1336776, 1520462, 1530983 and related notes.
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.abap.command_injection
Abstract
执行不可信赖资源中的命令,或在不可信赖的环境中执行命令,都会导致程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制了所执行的命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,即攻击者有可能控制所执行命令。这种类型的 Command Injection 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

例 1:下面这段代码根据配置文件的输入来决定其安装目录,然后根据指定目录的相对路径执行初始化脚本。


...
var fs:FileStream = new FileStream();
fs.open(new File(String(configStream.readObject())+".txt"), FileMode.READ);
home = String(fs.readObject(home));
var cmd:String = home + INITCMD;
fscommand("exec", cmd);
...
Example 1 中的代码可以使攻击者通过修改配置文件 configStream 的内容以指向包含恶意版本 INITCMD 的其他路径来提高自己在应用程序中的权限,继而随心所欲地执行命令。由于程序不会验证从该文件读取的值,因此如果攻击者可以控制这些值,他们就能欺骗应用程序去运行恶意代码,从而取得系统控制权。

例 2:下面的代码来自一个管理 Web 应用程序,旨在使用户能够使用一个围绕 rman 实用程序的批处理文件封装器来启动 Oracle 数据库备份,然后运行一个 cleanup.bat 脚本来删除一些临时文件。脚本 rmanDB.bat 接受单个命令行参数,该参数指定了要执行的备份类型。由于访问数据库受限,所以应用程序执行备份需要具有较高权限的用户。


...
var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var btype:String = String(params["backuptype"]);
var cmd:String = "cmd.exe /K \"c:\\util\\rmanDB.bat " + btype + "&&c:\\util\\cleanup.bat\"";
fscommand("exec", cmd);
...


这里的问题是:程序没有对读取自用户的 backuptype参数进行任何验证。通常情况下 fscommand() 函数不会执行多条命令,但在这种情况下,程序会首先运行 cmd.exe shell,从而可以通过调用一次 fscommnd() 来执行多条命令。在调用该 shell 之后,它即会允许执行用两个与号分隔的多条命令。如果攻击者传递了一个形式为 "&& del c:\\dbms\\*.*" 的字符串,那么应用程序将随程序指定的其他命令一起执行此命令。由于该应用程序的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备与数据库进行交互所需的权限,这就意味着攻击者注入的任何命令都将通过这些权限得以运行。

示例 3:下面的代码来自一个 Web 应用程序,用户可通过该应用程序提供的界面在系统上更新他们的密码。在某些网络环境中更新密码时,其中的一个步骤就是在 /var/yp 目录中运行 make 命令。


...
fscommand("exec", "make");
...


这里的问题在于程序没有在它的构造中指定一个绝对路径,并且没能在执行 fscommand() 调用前清除它的环境变量。如果攻击者能够修改 $PATH 变量,把它指向名为 make 恶意二进制代码,程序就会在其指定的环境下执行,然后加载该恶意二进制代码,而非原本期望的代码。由于应用程序自身的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备执行系统操作所需的权限,这意味着攻击者会利用这些权限执行自己的 make,从而可能导致攻击者完全控制系统。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.actionscript.command_injection
Abstract
执行不可信赖资源中的命令,或在不可信赖的环境中执行命令,都会导致程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制了所执行的命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,即攻击者有可能控制所执行命令。这种类型的 Command Injection 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

例 1:下面这段来自系统实用程序的代码根据系统属性 APPHOME 来决定其安装目录,然后根据指定目录的相对路径执行一个初始化脚本。


...
string val = Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("APPHOME");
string cmd = val + INITCMD;
ProcessStartInfo startInfo = new ProcessStartInfo(cmd);
Process.Start(startInfo);
...
Example 1 中的代码可以使攻击者通过修改系统属性 APPHOME 以指向包含恶意版本 INITCMD 的其他路径来提高自己在应用程序中的权限,继而随心所欲地执行命令。由于程序不会验证从环境中读取的值,因此如果攻击者能够控制系统属性 APPHOME 的值,他们就能欺骗应用程序去运行恶意代码,从而取得系统控制权。

例 2:下面的代码来自一个管理 Web 应用程序,旨在使用户能够使用一个围绕 rman 实用程序的批处理文件封装器来启动 Oracle 数据库备份,然后运行一个 cleanup.bat 脚本来删除一些临时文件。脚本 rmanDB.bat 接受单个命令行参数,该参数指定了要执行的备份类型。由于访问数据库受限,所以应用程序执行备份需要具有较高权限的用户。


...
string btype = BackupTypeField.Text;
string cmd = "cmd.exe /K \"c:\\util\\rmanDB.bat"
+ btype + "&&c:\\util\\cleanup.bat\""));
Process.Start(cmd);
...


这里的问题是:程序没有对 BackupTypeField进行任何验证。通常情况下 Process.Start() 函数不会执行多条命令,但在这种情况下,程序会首先运行 cmd.exe shell,从而可以通过调用一次 Process.Start() 来执行多条命令。在调用该 shell 之后,它即会允许执行用两个与号分隔的多条命令。如果攻击者传递了一个形式为 "&& del c:\\dbms\\*.*" 的字符串,那么应用程序将随程序指定的其他命令一起执行此命令。由于该应用程序的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备与数据库进行交互所需的权限,这就意味着攻击者注入的任何命令都将通过这些权限得以运行。

示例 3:以下代码来自一个 Web 应用程序,该应用程序可以使用户访问一个界面以更新其在系统中的密码。在此网络环境中更新密码时,其中一个步骤就是运行 update.exe 命令,如下所示:


...
Process.Start("update.exe");
...


这里的问题在于,程序没有指定一个绝对的路径,并且在执行 Process.start() 调用之前未清除其环境变量。如果攻击者能够修改 $PATH 变量,把它指向名为 update.exe 恶意二进制代码,程序就会在其指定的环境下执行,然后加载该恶意二进制代码,而非原本期望的代码。由于应用程序自身的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备执行系统操作所需的权限,这意味着攻击者会利用这些权限执行自己的 update.exe,从而可能导致攻击者完全控制系统。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.dotnet.command_injection
Abstract
执行包含无效用户输入的命令,会导致应用程序以攻击者的名义执行操作。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制了所执行的命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,既攻击者显式地控制了所执行的命令。这种类型的 Command Injection 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。


2. 数据是字符串的一部分,应用程序将该字符串作为命令加以执行。


3. 通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

示例 1:以下这个简单的程序将文件名作为命令行参数加以接受,并将文件的内容回显给用户。该程序是按照 setuid root 安装的,因为其最初的用途是一种学习工具,以便让那些仍在正在接受培训的系统管理员查看特权系统文件,而不授予其篡改权限或损坏系统的权力。


int main(char* argc, char** argv) {
char cmd[CMD_MAX] = "/usr/bin/cat ";
strcat(cmd, argv[1]);
system(cmd);
}


因为程序是利用 root 权限运行的,所以也会以 root 权限来调用 system()。如果用户指定了标准的文件名,那么调用就可按照您期望的方式进行。然而,如果攻击者传递了一个 ";rm -rf /" 形式的字符串,由于缺少参数,对 system() 的调用无法成功地执行 cat,然后程序会逐层删除根分区中的内容。

示例 2:以下代码来自于一个特权程序,该程序使用环境变量 $APPHOME 来确定应用程序的安装目录,然后在该目录中执行一个初始化脚本。


...
char* home=getenv("APPHOME");
char* cmd=(char*)malloc(strlen(home)+strlen(INITCMD));
if (cmd) {
strcpy(cmd,home);
strcat(cmd,INITCMD);
execl(cmd, NULL);
}
...


Example 1 中所示,该示例中的代码允许攻击者使用更高的应用程序权限来执行任意命令。在此示例中,攻击者可以篡改环境变量 $APPHOME 以指定包含恶意版本 INITCMD 的其他路径。由于程序不会验证从环境中读取的值,因此攻击者可通过控制该环境变量来诱骗应用程序去运行恶意代码。

因为攻击者使用环境变量来控制程序调用的命令,所以在本例中,环境的影响是不言而喻的。现在,我们转移一下注意力,看看如果攻击者能够改变命令的解析方式,会发生什么情况。

示例 3:以下代码来自一个基于 Web 的 CGI 实用程序,用户可以利用此实用程序修改其密码。通过 NIS 执行的密码更新过程包括在 /var/yp 目录中运行 make。请注意,由于程序更新了密码记录,因此它已按照 setuid root 安装。

程序会调用 make,如下所示:


system("cd /var/yp && make &> /dev/null");


与上一个示例不同,因为本例中的命令采用硬编码形式,所以攻击者不能控制传输到 system() 的参数。但是,因为程序没有指定 make 的绝对路径,而且没有在调用命令之前清除任何环境变量,所以攻击者就能够篡改它们的 $PATH 变量,以便指向一个名为 make 的恶意二进制代码,并在 shell 提示符中执行 CGI 脚本。而且,因为程序已按照 setuid root 安装,所以攻击者的 make 目前会在 root 的权限下执行。

在 Windows 中,还存在其他风险。

示例 4:直接或通过调用 _spawn() 家族中的某项函数调用 CreateProcess() 时,如果可执行文件或路径中存在空格,必须谨慎操作。


...
LPTSTR cmdLine = _tcsdup(TEXT("C:\\Program Files\\MyApplication -L -S"));
CreateProcess(NULL, cmdLine, ...);
...
CreateProcess() 解析空格时,操作系统尝试执行的第一个可执行文件将是 Program.exe,而不是 MyApplication.exe。因此,如果攻击者能够在系统上安装名称为 Program.exe 的恶意应用程序,任何使用 Program Files 目录错误调用 CreateProcess() 的程序将运行此恶意应用程序,而非原本期望的应用程序。

环境在程序的系统命令执行中扮演了一个十分重要的角色。由于诸如 system()exec()CreateProcess() 之类的函数利用调用这些函数的程序的环境,因此攻击者有可能影响这些调用行为。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.cpp.command_injection
Abstract
在不指定绝对路径的情况下执行命令,使攻击者能够通过更改 $PATH 或程序执行环境的其他方面使用该程序执行恶意二进制代码。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制命令。

- 攻击者能够控制程序的参数。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第二种情形,即攻击者能够通过篡改一个环境变量或预先在搜索路径中输入可执行的恶意内容,进而更改命令所代表的原始含义。这种形式的 Command Injection 漏洞在以下情况下发生:

1.攻击者修改应用程序的环境。

2.应用程序在不指定绝对路径或验证正在执行二进制代码的情况下执行命令。



3.通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

示例 1:此示例演示了攻击者更改命令解释方式时将会发生什么。以下代码来自一个基于 Web 的 CGI 实用程序,用户可以利用此实用程序更改其密码。通过 NIS 执行的密码更新过程包括在 /var/yp 目录中运行 make。请注意,由于程序更新了密码记录,因此它已按照 setuid root 安装。

程序会调用 make,如下所示:


MOVE "cd /var/yp && make &> /dev/null" to command-line
CALL "CBL_EXEC_RUN_UNIT" USING command-line
length of command-line
run-unit-id
stack-size
flags


此示例中的命令采用硬编码,因此攻击者无法控制传递到 CBL_EXEC_RUN_UNIT 的参数。然而,由于程序无法指定 make 的绝对路径,并且无法在调用命令之前擦除其环境变量,攻击者能够修改其 $PATH 变量以指向名为 make 的恶意二进制代码并通过 Shell 提示符执行 CGI 脚本。此外,由于程序已安装 setuid root,因此攻击者版本的 make 现在以 root 权限运行。

示例 2:以下代码使用环境变量确定包含要通过 pdfprint 命令打印的文件的临时目录。


DISPLAY "TEMP" UPON ENVIRONMENT-NAME
ACCEPT ws-temp-dir FROM ENVIRONMENT-VARIABLE
STRING "pdfprint " DELIMITED SIZE
ws-temp-dir DELIMITED SPACE
"/" DELIMITED SIZE
ws-pdf-filename DELIMITED SPACE
x"00" DELIMITED SIZE
INTO cmd-buffer
CALL "SYSTEM" USING cmd-buffer


与之前的示例类似,该命令采用硬编码。然而由于程序无法指定 pdfprint 的绝对路径,因此攻击者能够修改其指向恶意二进制代码的 $PATH 变量。此外,尽管 DELIMITED SPACE 短语能够阻止 ws-temp-dirws-pdf-filename 中的嵌入空间,仍然可能有 Shell 元字符(例如 &&)嵌入在这两者之一。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.semantic.cobol.command_injection
Abstract
执行不可信赖资源中的命令,或在不可信赖的环境中执行命令,都会导致程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制了所执行的命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,即攻击者有可能控制所执行命令。这种类型的 Command Injection 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

例 1:攻击者可以利用下列代码通过 cmd 请求参数指定任意指令。


...
<cfset var="#url.cmd#">
<cfexecute name = "C:\windows\System32\cmd.exe"
arguments = "/c #var#"
timeout = "1"
variable="mycmd">
</cfexecute>
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.cfml.command_injection
Abstract
执行不可信赖资源中的命令,或在不可信赖的环境中执行命令,都会导致程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,即攻击者控制所执行命令的可能性。这种形式的 Command Injection 漏洞在以下情况下发生:

1.数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2.数据作为代表应用程序所执行命令的一个字符串或部分字符串使用。

3.通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

示例 1:系统实用程序中的以下代码使用系统属性 APPHOME 来确定其安装目录,然后根据指定目录的相对路径执行初始化脚本。


...
final cmd = String.fromEnvironment('APPHOME');
await Process.run(cmd);
...
Example 1 中的代码可以使攻击者通过修改系统属性 APPHOME 以指向包含恶意版本 INITCMD 的其他路径来提高自己在应用程序中的权限,继而随心所欲地执行命令。由于程序不会验证从环境中读取的值,因此如果攻击者能够控制系统属性 APPHOME 的值,他们就能欺骗应用程序去运行恶意代码,从而取得系统控制权。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.dart.command_injection
Abstract
执行不可信赖资源中的命令,或在不可信赖的环境中执行命令,都会导致程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,即攻击者控制命令的可能性。这种形式的 Command Injection 漏洞在以下情况下发生:

1.数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。


2.数据作为代表应用程序所执行命令的一个字符串或部分字符串使用。

3.通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

示例:以下代码会运行用户控制的命令。


cmdName := request.FormValue("Command")
c := exec.Command(cmdName)
c.Run()
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.golang.command_injection
Abstract
执行不可信赖资源中的命令,或在不可信赖的环境中执行命令,都会导致程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制了所执行的命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,即攻击者有可能控制所执行命令。这种类型的 Command Injection 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

例 1:下面这段来自系统实用程序的代码根据系统属性 APPHOME 来决定其安装目录,然后根据指定目录的相对路径执行一个初始化脚本。


...
String home = System.getProperty("APPHOME");
String cmd = home + INITCMD;
java.lang.Runtime.getRuntime().exec(cmd);
...
Example 1 中的代码可以使攻击者通过修改系统属性 APPHOME 以指向包含恶意版本 INITCMD 的其他路径来提高自己在应用程序中的权限,继而随心所欲地执行命令。由于程序不会验证从环境中读取的值,因此如果攻击者能够控制系统属性 APPHOME 的值,他们就能欺骗应用程序去运行恶意代码,从而取得系统控制权。

例 2:下面的代码来自一个管理 Web 应用程序,旨在使用户能够使用一个围绕 rman 实用程序的批处理文件封装器来启动 Oracle 数据库备份,然后运行一个 cleanup.bat 脚本来删除一些临时文件。脚本 rmanDB.bat 接受单个命令行参数,该参数指定了要执行的备份类型。由于访问数据库受限,所以应用程序执行备份需要具有较高权限的用户。


...
String btype = request.getParameter("backuptype");
String cmd = new String("cmd.exe /K
\"c:\\util\\rmanDB.bat "+btype+"&&c:\\util\\cleanup.bat\"")
System.Runtime.getRuntime().exec(cmd);
...


这里的问题是:程序没有对读取自用户的 backuptype参数进行任何验证。通常情况下 Runtime.exec() 函数不会执行多条命令,但在这种情况下,程序会首先运行 cmd.exe shell,从而可以通过调用一次 Runtime.exec() 来执行多条命令。在调用该 shell 之后,它即会允许执行用两个与号分隔的多条命令。如果攻击者传递了一个形式为 "&& del c:\\dbms\\*.*" 的字符串,那么应用程序将随程序指定的其他命令一起执行此命令。由于该应用程序的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备与数据库进行交互所需的权限,这就意味着攻击者注入的任何命令都将通过这些权限得以运行。

示例 3:下面的代码来自一个 Web 应用程序,用户可通过该应用程序提供的界面在系统上更新他们的密码。在某些网络环境中更新密码时,其中的一个步骤就是在 /var/yp 目录中运行 make 命令。


...
System.Runtime.getRuntime().exec("make");
...


这里的问题在于程序没有在它的构造中指定一个绝对路径,并且没能在执行 Runtime.exec() 调用前清除它的环境变量。如果攻击者能够修改 $PATH 变量,把它指向名为 make 恶意二进制代码,程序就会在其指定的环境下执行,然后加载该恶意二进制代码,而非原本期望的代码。由于应用程序自身的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备执行系统操作所需的权限,这意味着攻击者会利用这些权限执行自己的 make,从而可能导致攻击者完全控制系统。

有些人认为在移动世界中,典型的漏洞(如 Command Injection)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)。

例 4:以下代码可从 Android Intent 中读取要执行的命令。


...
String[] cmds = this.getIntent().getStringArrayExtra("commands");
Process p = Runtime.getRuntime().exec("su");
DataOutputStream os = new DataOutputStream(p.getOutputStream());
for (String cmd : cmds) {
os.writeBytes(cmd+"\n");
}
os.writeBytes("exit\n");
os.flush();
...


在经过 root 的设备上,恶意应用程序会强迫受攻击应用程序使用超级用户权限执行任意命令。
References
[1] IDS07-J. Sanitize untrusted data passed to the Runtime.exec() method CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.java.command_injection
Abstract
执行不可信赖资源中的命令,或在不可信赖的环境中执行命令,都会导致程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制了所执行的命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,即攻击者有可能控制所执行命令。这种类型的 Command Injection 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。


2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

示例 1:以下来自系统实用程序的代码根据环境变量 APPHOME 来决定其安装目录,然后根据指定目录的相对路径来执行初始化脚本。


var cp = require('child_process');
...
var home = process.env('APPHOME');
var cmd = home + INITCMD;
child = cp.exec(cmd, function(error, stdout, stderr){
...
});
...
Example 1 中的代码可以使攻击者通过修改系统属性 APPHOME 以指向包含恶意版本 INITCMD 的其他路径来提高自己在应用程序中的权限,继而随心所欲地执行命令。由于程序不会验证从环境中读取的值,因此如果攻击者能够控制系统属性 APPHOME 的值,他们就能欺骗应用程序去运行恶意代码,从而取得系统控制权。

示例 2:下面的代码来自一个管理 Web 应用程序,旨在使用户能够使用一个围绕 rman 实用程序的批处理文件封装器来启动 Oracle 数据库备份。脚本 rmanDB.bat 接受单个命令行参数,该参数指定了要执行的备份类型。由于访问数据库受限,所以应用程序执行备份需要具有较高权限的用户。


var cp = require('child_process');
var http = require('http');
var url = require('url');

function listener(request, response){
var btype = url.parse(request.url, true)['query']['backuptype'];
if (btype !== undefined){
cmd = "c:\\util\\rmanDB.bat" + btype;
cp.exec(cmd, function(error, stdout, stderr){
...
});
}
...
}
...
http.createServer(listener).listen(8080);


这里的问题是:程序除了验证读取自用户的 backuptype参数是否存在之外,没有对其进行任何验证。在调用该 shell 之后,就可能允许执行多个命令,并且由于该应用程序的特性,该应用程序将会使用与数据库进行交互的必要权限来运行,这就意味着攻击者注入的任何命令都会通过这些权限来运行。

示例 3:下面的代码来自一个 Web 应用程序,用户可通过该应用程序提供的界面在系统上更新他们的密码。在某些网络环境中更新密码时,其中的一个步骤就是在 /var/yp 目录中运行 make 命令。


...
require('child_process').exec("make", function(error, stdout, stderr){
...
});
...


这里的问题在于,程序没有指定 make 的绝对路径,因此没能在执行 child_process.exec() 调用前清理其环境。如果攻击者能够修改 $PATH 变量,把它指向名为 make 恶意二进制代码,程序就会在其指定的环境下执行,然后加载该恶意二进制代码,而非原本期望的代码。由于应用程序自身的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备执行系统操作所需的权限,这意味着攻击者会利用这些权限执行自己的 make,从而可能导致攻击者完全控制系统。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.javascript.command_injection
Abstract
执行不可信赖资源中的命令,或在不可信赖的环境中执行命令,都会导致程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制了所执行的命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,即攻击者有可能控制所执行命令。这种类型的 Command Injection 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

例 1:下面这段来自系统实用程序的代码根据系统属性 APPHOME 来决定其安装目录,然后根据指定目录的相对路径执行一个初始化脚本。


...
$home = $_ENV['APPHOME'];
$cmd = $home . $INITCMD;
system(cmd);
...
Example 1 中的代码可以使攻击者通过修改系统属性 APPHOME 以指向包含恶意版本 INITCMD 的其他路径来提高自己在应用程序中的权限,继而随心所欲地执行命令。由于程序不会验证从环境中读取的值,因此如果攻击者能够控制系统属性 APPHOME 的值,他们就能欺骗应用程序去运行恶意代码,从而取得系统控制权。

例 2:下面的代码来自一个管理 Web 应用程序,旨在使用户能够使用一个围绕 rman 实用程序的批处理文件封装器来启动 Oracle 数据库备份,然后运行一个 cleanup.bat 脚本来删除一些临时文件。脚本 rmanDB.bat 接受单个命令行参数,该参数指定了要执行的备份类型。由于访问数据库受限,所以应用程序执行备份需要具有较高权限的用户。


...
$btype = $_GET['backuptype'];
$cmd = "cmd.exe /K \"c:\\util\\rmanDB.bat " . $btype . "&&c:\\util\\cleanup.bat\"";
system(cmd);
...


这里的问题是:程序没有对读取自用户的 backuptype参数进行任何验证。通常情况下 Runtime.exec() 函数不会执行多条命令,但在这种情况下,程序会首先运行 cmd.exe shell,从而可以通过调用一次 Runtime.exec() 来执行多条命令。在调用该 shell 之后,它即会允许执行用两个与号分隔的多条命令。如果攻击者传递了一个形式为 "&& del c:\\dbms\\*.*" 的字符串,那么应用程序将随程序指定的其他命令一起执行此命令。由于该应用程序的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备与数据库进行交互所需的权限,这就意味着攻击者注入的任何命令都将通过这些权限得以运行。

示例 3:下面的代码来自一个 Web 应用程序,用户可通过该应用程序提供的界面在系统上更新他们的密码。在某些网络环境中更新密码时,其中的一个步骤就是在 /var/yp 目录中运行 make 命令。


...
$result = shell_exec("make");
...


这里的问题在于程序没有在它的构造中指定一个绝对路径,并且没能在执行 Runtime.exec() 调用前清除它的环境变量。如果攻击者能够修改 $PATH 变量,把它指向名为 make 恶意二进制代码,程序就会在其指定的环境下执行,然后加载该恶意二进制代码,而非原本期望的代码。由于应用程序自身的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备执行系统操作所需的权限,这意味着攻击者会利用这些权限执行自己的 make,从而可能导致攻击者完全控制系统。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.php.command_injection
Abstract
执行不可信赖资源中的命令,或在不可信赖的环境中执行命令,都会导致程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制了所执行的命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,即攻击者有可能控制所执行命令。这种类型的 Command Injection 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

示例:以下代码定义了一个 T-SQL 存储过程,当使用不可信的数据调用该过程时,将执行攻击者控制的系统命令。


...
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.listFiles (@path NVARCHAR(200))
AS

DECLARE @cmd NVARCHAR(500)
SET @cmd = 'dir ' + @path

exec xp_cmdshell @cmd

GO
...
References
[1] xp_cmdshell
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.sql.command_injection
Abstract
执行不可信赖资源中的命令,或在不可信赖的环境中执行命令,都会导致程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制了所执行的命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,即攻击者有可能控制所执行命令。这种类型的 Command Injection 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

例 1:下面这段来自系统实用程序的代码根据系统属性 APPHOME 来决定其安装目录,然后根据指定目录的相对路径执行一个初始化脚本。


...
home = os.getenv('APPHOME')
cmd = home.join(INITCMD)
os.system(cmd);
...
Example 1 中的代码可以使攻击者通过修改系统属性 APPHOME 以指向包含恶意版本 INITCMD 的其他路径来提高自己在应用程序中的权限,继而随心所欲地执行命令。由于程序不会验证从环境中读取的值,因此如果攻击者能够控制系统属性 APPHOME 的值,他们就能欺骗应用程序去运行恶意代码,从而取得系统控制权。

例 2:下面的代码来自一个管理 Web 应用程序,旨在使用户能够使用一个围绕 rman 实用程序的批处理文件封装器来启动 Oracle 数据库备份,然后运行一个 cleanup.bat 脚本来删除一些临时文件。脚本 rmanDB.bat 接受单个命令行参数,该参数指定了要执行的备份类型。由于访问数据库受限,所以应用程序执行备份需要具有较高权限的用户。


...
btype = req.field('backuptype')
cmd = "cmd.exe /K \"c:\\util\\rmanDB.bat " + btype + "&&c:\\util\\cleanup.bat\""
os.system(cmd);
...


这里的问题是:程序没有对读取自用户的 backuptype参数进行任何验证。通常情况下 Runtime.exec() 函数不会执行多条命令,但在这种情况下,程序会首先运行 cmd.exe shell,从而可以通过调用一次 Runtime.exec() 来执行多条命令。在调用该 shell 之后,它即会允许执行用两个与号分隔的多条命令。如果攻击者传递了一个形式为 "&& del c:\\dbms\\*.*" 的字符串,那么应用程序将随程序指定的其他命令一起执行此命令。由于该应用程序的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备与数据库进行交互所需的权限,这就意味着攻击者注入的任何命令都将通过这些权限得以运行。

示例 3:下面的代码来自一个 Web 应用程序,用户可通过该应用程序提供的界面在系统上更新他们的密码。在某些网络环境中更新密码时,其中的一个步骤就是在 /var/yp 目录中运行 make 命令。


...
result = os.system("make");
...


这里的问题在于程序没有在它的构造中指定一个绝对路径,并且没能在执行 os.system() 调用前清除它的环境变量。如果攻击者能够修改 $PATH 变量,把它指向名为 make 恶意二进制代码,程序就会在其指定的环境下执行,然后加载该恶意二进制代码,而非原本期望的代码。由于应用程序自身的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备执行系统操作所需的权限,这意味着攻击者会利用这些权限执行自己的 make,从而可能导致攻击者完全控制系统。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.python.command_injection
Abstract
执行不可信赖资源中的命令,或在不可信赖的环境中执行命令,都会导致程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制了所执行的命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,即攻击者有可能控制所执行命令。这种类型的 Command Injection 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。


2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

例 1:下面这段来自系统实用程序的代码根据系统属性 APPHOME 来决定其安装目录,然后根据指定目录的相对路径执行一个初始化脚本。


...
home = ENV['APPHOME']
cmd = home + INITCMD
Process.spawn(cmd)
...
Example 1 中的代码可以使攻击者通过修改系统属性 APPHOME 以指向包含恶意版本 INITCMD 的其他路径来提高自己在应用程序中的权限,继而随心所欲地执行命令。由于程序不会验证从环境中读取的值,因此如果攻击者能够控制系统属性 APPHOME 的值,他们就能欺骗应用程序去运行恶意代码,从而取得系统控制权。

例 2:下面的代码来自一个管理 Web 应用程序,旨在使用户能够使用一个围绕 rman 实用程序的批处理文件封装器来启动 Oracle 数据库备份,然后运行一个 cleanup.bat 脚本来删除一些临时文件。脚本 rmanDB.bat 接受单个命令行参数,该参数指定了要执行的备份类型。由于访问数据库受限,所以应用程序执行备份需要具有较高权限的用户。


...
btype = req['backuptype']
cmd = "C:\\util\\rmanDB.bat #{btype} &&C:\\util\\cleanup.bat"
spawn(cmd)
...


这里的问题是:程序没有对读取自用户的 backuptype参数进行任何验证。在通过 Kernel.spawn 调用该 shell 之后,它即会允许执行用两个与号分隔的多条命令。如果攻击者传递了一个形式为 "&& del c:\\dbms\\*.*" 的字符串,那么应用程序将随程序指定的其他命令一起执行此命令。由于该应用程序的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备与数据库进行交互所需的权限,这就意味着攻击者注入的任何命令都将通过这些权限得以运行。

示例 3:下面的代码来自一个 Web 应用程序,用户可通过该应用程序提供的界面在系统上更新他们的密码。在某些网络环境中更新密码时,其中的一个步骤就是在 /var/yp 目录中运行 make 命令。


...
system("make")
...


这里的问题在于程序没有在它的构造中指定一个绝对路径,并且没能在执行 Kernel.system() 调用前清除它的环境变量。如果攻击者能够修改 $PATH 变量,把它指向名为 make 恶意二进制代码,程序就会在其指定的环境下执行,然后加载该恶意二进制代码,而非原本期望的代码。由于应用程序自身的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备执行系统操作所需的权限,这意味着攻击者会利用这些权限执行自己的 make,从而可能导致攻击者完全控制系统。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.ruby.command_injection
Abstract
执行包含无效用户输入的命令,会导致应用程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制了所执行的命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第二种情况,即攻击者有可能通过篡改一个环境变量或预先在搜索路径中输入可执行的恶意内容,进而更改命令所代表的原始含义。这种类型的 Command Injection 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1.攻击者篡改某一应用程序的环境。

2.应用程序在没有指明绝对路径,或者没有检验所执行的二进制代码的情况下就执行命令。

3.通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

示例:下面的代码来自一个 Web 应用程序,用户可通过该应用程序提供的界面在系统上更新他们的密码。


def changePassword(username: String, password: String) = Action { request =>
...
s'echo "${password}" | passwd ${username} --stdin'.!
...
}
References
[1] IDS07-J. Sanitize untrusted data passed to the Runtime.exec() method CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.scala.command_injection
Abstract
执行不可信赖资源中的命令,或在不可信赖的环境中执行命令,都会导致程序以攻击者的名义执行恶意命令。
Explanation
Command Injection 漏洞主要表现为以下两种形式:

- 攻击者能够篡改程序执行的命令:攻击者直接控制了所执行的命令。

- 攻击者能够篡改命令的执行环境:攻击者间接地控制了所执行的命令。

在这种情况下,我们着重关注第一种情况,即攻击者有可能控制所执行命令。这种类型的 Command Injection 漏洞会在以下情况下出现:

1. 数据从不可信赖的数据源进入应用程序。

2. 数据被用作代表应用程序所执行命令的字符串,或字符串的一部分。

3. 通过命令的执行,应用程序会授予攻击者一种原本不该拥有的特权或能力。

例 1:下面这段来自系统实用程序的代码根据系统属性 APPHOME 来决定其安装目录,然后根据指定目录的相对路径执行一个初始化脚本。


...
Dim cmd
Dim home

home = Environ$("AppHome")
cmd = home & initCmd
Shell cmd, vbNormalFocus
...
Example 1 中的代码可以使攻击者通过修改系统属性 APPHOME 以指向包含恶意版本 INITCMD 的其他路径来提高自己在应用程序中的权限,继而随心所欲地执行命令。由于程序不会验证从环境中读取的值,因此如果攻击者能够控制系统属性 APPHOME 的值,他们就能欺骗应用程序去运行恶意代码,从而取得系统控制权。

例 2:下面的代码来自一个管理 Web 应用程序,旨在使用户能够使用一个围绕 rman 实用程序的批处理文件封装器来启动 Oracle 数据库备份,然后运行一个 cleanup.bat 脚本来删除一些临时文件。脚本 rmanDB.bat 接受单个命令行参数,该参数指定了要执行的备份类型。由于访问数据库受限,所以应用程序执行备份需要具有较高权限的用户。


...
btype = Request.Form("backuptype")
cmd = "cmd.exe /K " & Chr(34) & "c:\util\rmanDB.bat " & btype & "&&c:\util\cleanup.bat" & Chr(34) & ";
Shell cmd, vbNormalFocus
...


这里的问题是:程序没有对读取自用户的 backuptype参数进行任何验证。在调用该 shell 之后,它即会允许执行用两个与号分隔的多条命令。如果攻击者传递了一个形式为 "&& del c:\\dbms\\*.*" 的字符串,那么应用程序将随程序指定的其他命令一起执行此命令。由于该应用程序的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备与数据库进行交互所需的权限,这就意味着攻击者注入的任何命令都将通过这些权限得以运行。

示例 3:下面的代码来自一个 Web 应用程序,用户可通过该应用程序提供的界面在系统上更新他们的密码。在某些网络环境中更新密码时,其中的一个步骤就是在 /var/yp 目录中运行 make 命令。


...
$result = shell_exec("make");
...


这里的问题在于程序没有在它的构造中指定一个绝对路径,并且没能在执行 Runtime.exec() 调用前清除它的环境变量。如果攻击者能够修改 $PATH 变量,把它指向名为 make 恶意二进制代码,程序就会在其指定的环境下执行,然后加载该恶意二进制代码,而非原本期望的代码。由于应用程序自身的特性,运行该应用程序需要具备执行系统操作所需的权限,这意味着攻击者会利用这些权限执行自己的 make,从而可能导致攻击者完全控制系统。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.dataflow.vb.command_injection
Abstract
直接引用 GitHub Actions 运行脚本中的特定 GitHub Action 表达式会使系统容易受到 Command Injection 的攻击。
Explanation
对运行脚本中 GitHub Action 表达式的直接引用是动态生成的。这使得任何能够控制输入的人都可以通过使用 Command Injection 来破坏系统。

示例 1:以下 GitHub Action 代码直接引用了运行脚本中的表达式,这会使系统面临 Command Injection 风险。


...
steps:
- run: echo "${{ github.event.pull_request.title }}"
...


运行操作时,会动态执行 shell 脚本,包括 github.event.pull_request.title 值表示的任何代码。如果 github.event.pull_request.title 包含恶意可执行代码,会导致该操作运行恶意代码,从而导致 Command Injection 攻击。

References
[1] Security Hardening for GitHub Actions - Good Practices for Mitigating Script Injection Attacks
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 77, CWE ID 78
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [11] CWE ID 078
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [10] CWE ID 078
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [5] CWE ID 078, [25] CWE ID 077
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.2 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.3 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.8 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.2 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.5 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M2 Inadequate Supply Chain Security
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 078
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002510 CAT I, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.structural.yaml.command_injection_github_actions
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)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 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 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 020
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[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 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
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
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[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 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 020
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[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 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
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
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[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
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[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 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 020
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[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 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
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)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 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 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 020
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 807
[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 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
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);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[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 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
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
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 494, CWE ID 829
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A08 Software and Data Integrity Failures
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] 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
[28] 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
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 494, Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 829
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
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 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark 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 3.1 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 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 5.0
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[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 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 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 5.0
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[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 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.7
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 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 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[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 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[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 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 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[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 3.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[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 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