界: API Abuse

API 就像是呼叫者與被呼叫者之間簽訂的規定。最常見的 API 濫用形式是由呼叫者這一當事方未能遵守此規定所造成的。例如,如果程式在呼叫 chroot() 後無法呼叫 chdir(),即違反規範如何以安全方式變更使用中根目錄的規定。程式庫濫用的另一個好例子是期待被呼叫者向呼叫者傳回值得信賴的 DNS 資訊。在這種情況下,呼叫者是透過對其行為做出某些假設 (傳回值可用於驗證目的) 來濫用被呼叫者 API。另一方也可能違反呼叫者與被呼叫者間的規定。例如,如果編碼器衍生出子類別 SecureRandom 並傳回一個非隨機值,則違反了規定。

83 找到的項目
弱點
Abstract
unsecure 屬性會指定一個屬性清單,其值可以在用戶端上設定。
Explanation
Oracle ADF Faces 元件的屬性值通常只能在伺服器上設定。但是,有許多元件允許開發人員定義可以在用戶端上設定的屬性清單。這些元件的 unsecure 屬性可以指定此類清單。

目前,唯一能夠在 unsecure 屬性內顯示的屬性是 disabled,而且它允許用戶端定義哪些元件為啟用,而哪些元件不啟用。讓用戶端控制應該在僅能在伺服器上設定的屬性值,絕對不是個好方法。

範例:以下程式碼示範了 inputText 元件,該元件會從使用者收集密碼資訊,並使用 unsecure 屬性。


...
<af:inputText id="pwdBox"
label="#{resources.PWD}"
value=""#{userBean.password}
unsecure="disabled"
secret="true"
required="true"/>
...
References
[1] Oracle ADF Faces Tag Reference
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[3] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
desc.structural.java.adf_faces_bad_practices_unsecure_attribute
Abstract
應用程式允許針對 file:// 通訊協定使用 Cookie,這可能會造成不良的安全性影響。
Explanation
根據 RFC 2109,Cookie 嚴格意義上來說是 HTTP 機制。 不應合理預期 Cookie 適用於除 HTTP 以外的通訊協定,包括 file://。 目前尚不確定其行為,以及應套用哪些安全性劃分規則。 例如,從網際網路下載到本機磁碟的 HTML 檔案是否應該與本機安裝的任何 HTML 程式碼共用相同的 Cookie?
References
[1] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
desc.semantic.java.android_bad_practices_use_of_file_scheme_cookies
Abstract
應用程式錯誤指定了 ASP.NET Cookie 原則中介軟體。
Explanation
未依正確順序新增到中介軟體管道的 ASP.NET Core 中介軟體將無法依預期般執行,進而使應用程式可能面臨各種安全問題。

範例 1:UseCookiePolicy() 方法將 Cookie 原則中介軟體新增到中介軟體管道,進而允許自訂 Cookie 原則。當以錯誤的順序指定時,程式設計師聲明的任何 Cookie 原則將被忽略。


...
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(...);
var app = builder.Build(...);
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseSession();
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
...
}

app.UseCookiePolicy();
...
References
[1] Rick Anderson, Steve Smith ASP.NET Core Middleware Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 696, CWE ID 1188, CWE ID 565
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP, SC
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.1 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective 2.3 - Secure Defaults
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective 2.3 - Secure Defaults, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.controlflow.dotnet.asp_dotnet_middleware_out_of_order_default_cookie_configuration
Abstract
應用程式錯誤指定了預設的 ASP.NET HTTPS 重新導向中介軟體。
Explanation
未依正確順序新增到中介軟體管道的 ASP.NET Core 中介軟體將無法依預期般執行,進而使應用程式可能面臨各種安全問題。

範例 1:UseHttpsRedirection() 方法將 HTTPS 重新導向中介軟體新增到中介軟體管道,進而允許將不安全的 HTTP 要求重新導向到安全的 HTTPS 要求。如果以錯誤的順序指定,則在透過重新導向之前列出的中介軟體處理要求之前,不會發生有意義的 HTTPS 重新導向。這將允許應用程式在重新導向到安全 HTTPS 連線之前處理 HTTP 要求。


...
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(...);
var app = builder.Build(...);
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseSession();
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
...
}

app.UseHttpsRedirection();
...
References
[1] Rick Anderson, Steve Smith ASP.NET Core Middleware Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 696, CWE ID 200, CWE ID 311, CWE ID 319
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000068, CCI-001453, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422, CCI-002890, CCI-003123
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SC
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-17 Remote Access (P1), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-17 Remote Access, MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M5 Insecure Communication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[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 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.3 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 319
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260.1 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3260 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002150 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
desc.controlflow.dotnet.asp_dotnet_middleware_out_of_order_insecure_transport
Abstract
應用程式錯誤指定了 ASP.NET Core 記錄中介軟體。
Explanation
未依正確順序新增到中介軟體管道的 ASP.NET Core 中介軟體將無法依預期般執行,進而使應用程式可能面臨各種安全問題。

範例 1:UseHttpLogging() 方法將 HTTP 記錄中介軟體新增到中介軟體管道,進而允許記錄中介軟體元件。當以錯誤的順序指定時,在呼叫 UseHttpLogging() 之前將不會記錄新增到管道的任何中介軟體。


...
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(...);
var app = builder.Build(...);
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseSession();
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
...
}

app.UseHttpLogging();
...
範例 2:UseWC3Logging() 方法將 W3C 記錄中介軟體新增到中介軟體管道,進而允許記錄中介軟體元件。當以錯誤的順序指定時,在呼叫 UseWC3Logging() 之前將不會記錄新增到管道的任何中介軟體。


...
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(...);
var app = builder.Build(...);
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseSession();
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
...
}

app.UseWC3Logging();
...
References
[1] Rick Anderson, Steve Smith ASP.NET Core Middleware Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 696, CWE ID 778
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000172
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), AU-12 Audit Generation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-10 Non-Repudiation, AU-12 Audit Record Generation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 7.1.3 Log Content Requirements (L2 L3), 7.1.4 Log Content Requirements (L2 L3), 7.2.1 Log Processing Requirements (L2 L3), 7.2.2 Log Processing Requirements (L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration, A10 Insufficient Logging and Monitoring
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10, Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.4, Requirement 10.3.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 10.2.1, Requirement 10.2.1.4, Requirement 10.2.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 8.2 - Activity Tracking
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 8.2 - Activity Tracking
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 8.2 - Activity Tracking
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3680.4 CAT II, APP3680.5 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-000830 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.controlflow.dotnet.asp_dotnet_middleware_out_of_order_insufficient_logging
Abstract
控制器動作可能會因受限於只能接受以下 HTTP 動詞之一而受益:Post、Put、Patch 或 Delete。
Explanation
透過寫入、更新或刪除方式修改資料的 ASP.NET MVC 控制器動作可能會因受限於只能接受以下其中一個 HTTP 動詞而受益:Post、Put、Patch 或 Delete。這會增加 Cross-Site Request Forgery 的難度,因為不小心點選連結將不會導致動作執行。

以下控制項動作預設狀況下接受任何動詞,可能容易受到跨網站偽造要求攻擊:


public ActionResult UpdateWidget(Model model)
{
// ... controller logic
}
References
[1] Don't use Delete Links because they create Security Holes
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 352
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [9] CWE ID 352
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [9] CWE ID 352
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [9] CWE ID 352
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [9] CWE ID 352
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [9] CWE ID 352
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-001941, CCI-001942
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) (P1), SC-23 Session Authenticity (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-2 Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users), SC-23 Session Authenticity, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 4.2.2 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 13.2.3 RESTful Web Service Verification Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A5 Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A5 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A8 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.9
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.9
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.9
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 352
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3585 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3585 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3585 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3585 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3585 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3585 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3585 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001620 CAT II, APSC-DV-001630 CAT II, APSC-DV-002500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Cross-Site Request Forgery (WASC-09)
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Cross-Site Request Forgery
desc.structural.dotnet.aspnet_mvc_bad_practices_action_not_post_only
Abstract
模型類別擁有需要的屬性,也擁有不需要的屬性,因此可能受到過度公佈攻擊。
Explanation
若使用的模型類別既有需要的屬性 (以 [Required] 屬性標明),也有選用的屬性 (未以 [Required] 屬性標明),在攻擊者傳送的要求所含資料多於預期時,會發生問題。

ASP.NET MVC 框架嘗試將要求參數繫結至模型屬性。

若兼具多種需求,但未明確指出哪些參數將繫結至模型,此狀況可能表示有些模型屬性供內部使用,但是可由攻擊者控制。

以下程式碼定義了某種可能的模型類別,該類別既包含擁有 [Required] 的屬性,也包含沒有 [Required] 的屬性:


public class MyModel
{
[Required]
public String UserName { get; set; }

[Required]
public String Password { get; set; }

public Boolean IsAdmin { get; set; }
}


若選用參數能變更應用程式的行為,則攻擊者就能透過在要求中傳送選用參數來實際變更該行為。
References
[1] Input Validation vs. Model Validation in ASP.NET MVC
[2] BindAttribute Class
[3] RequiredAttribute Class
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 345
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002422
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 13.2.6 RESTful Web Service Verification Requirements (L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.dotnet.aspnet_mvc_bad_practices_mixed_required_model
Abstract
模型類別擁有所需的不可為 Null 的屬性,因此可能容易受到公佈不足攻擊。
Explanation
若使用的模型類別擁有所需的不可為 Null 的屬性 (以 [Required] 屬性標明),在攻擊者傳送的要求所含資料少於預期時,會發生問題。

ASP.NET MVC 框架嘗試將要求參數繫結至模型屬性。

若模型包含所需的不可為 Null 的參數,而攻擊者並未在要求中傳送所需的該參數 (即攻擊者使用公佈不足攻擊),則該屬性將具有符合 [Required] 驗證屬性需求的預設值 (通常為零)。這可能會產生非預期的應用程式行為。

以下程式碼定義了某種可能的模型類別,該類別包含所需的列舉 (不可為 Null):


public enum ArgumentOptions
{
OptionA = 1,
OptionB = 2
}

public class Model
{
[Required]
public String Argument { get; set; }

[Required]
public ArgumentOptions Rounding { get; set; }
}
References
[1] Input Validation vs. Model Validation in ASP.NET MVC
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 345
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002422
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 13.2.6 RESTful Web Service Verification Requirements (L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.dotnet.aspnet_mvc_bad_practices_required_non_nullable_in_model
Abstract
模型類別擁有所需的屬性,該屬性的類型是父系模型類型的選用成員,因此可能容易受到公佈不足攻擊。
Explanation
若模型類別擁有所需的屬性,該屬性的類型是父系模型類型的選用成員,則在攻擊者傳送的要求所含資料少於預期時,可能容易受到公佈不足攻擊。

ASP.NET MVC 框架嘗試將要求參數繫結至模型屬性 (包括子模型)。

若子模型為選用項目 (即父系模型擁有的某個屬性沒有 [Required] 屬性),則在攻擊者未傳送該子模型時,父系屬性的值將是 null,模型驗證將不會宣告子模型的所需欄位。這是公佈不足攻擊的一種形式。

請考慮以下模型類別定義:


public class ChildModel
{
public ChildModel()
{
}

[Required]
public String RequiredProperty { get; set; }
}

public class ParentModel
{
public ParentModel()
{
}

public ChildModel Child { get; set; }
}


若攻擊者未傳送 ParentModel.Child 屬性的值,則 ChildModel.RequiredProperty 屬性將擁有未宣告的 [Required]。這可能會產生非預期且不適當的結果。
References
[1] Input Validation vs. Model Validation in ASP.NET MVC
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 345
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002422
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 13.2.6 RESTful Web Service Verification Requirements (L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.structural.dotnet.aspnet_mvc_bad_practices_optional_submodel_with_required_property
Abstract
應用程式要求使用者輸入其指紋,但未提供正當理由。
Explanation
根據 Apple 的策略,應用程式應總是向使用者解釋要求其輸入指紋的原因。如果沒有這樣做,可能會讓使用者感到困惑,甚至使應用程式在 AppStore 中遭到拒絕。

範例 1:以下程式碼使用 Touch ID 來驗證使用者,但未提供本地化原因來解釋為什麼要求進行驗證。


[context evaluatePolicy:LAPolicyDeviceOwnerAuthenticationWithBiometrics localizedReason:nil
reply:^(BOOL success, NSError *error) {
if (success) {
NSLog(@"Auth was OK");
}
}];
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] Keychain and Authentication with Touch ID Apple
[3] https://developer.apple.com/reference/localauthentication/lacontext Apple
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1, MASVS-AUTH-2
desc.structural.objc.biometric_authentication_missing_operation_message
Abstract
應用程式要求使用者輸入其指紋,但未提供正當理由。
Explanation
根據 Apple 的策略,應用程式應總是向使用者解釋要求其輸入指紋的原因。如果沒有這樣做,可能會讓使用者感到困惑,甚至使應用程式在 AppStore 中遭到拒絕。

範例 1:以下程式碼使用 Touch ID 來驗證使用者,但未提供本地化原因來解釋為什麼要求進行驗證。


context.evaluatePolicy(LAPolicy.DeviceOwnerAuthenticationWithBiometrics, localizedReason: "", reply: { (success, error) -> Void in
if (success) {
print("Auth was OK");
}
else {
print("Error received: %d", error!);
}
})
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] Keychain and Authentication with Touch ID Apple
[3] https://developer.apple.com/reference/localauthentication/lacontext Apple
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1, MASVS-AUTH-2
desc.structural.swift.biometric_authentication_missing_operation_message
Abstract
非唯讀的 Castor 查詢會影響效能。
Explanation
即使 Castor 在物件上建立鎖定,也無法阻止其他執行緒讀取或寫入該物件。跟預設共享模式比較起來,唯讀查詢的速度大約快了七倍。

範例 1:下列範例指定查詢模式為 SHARED,允許讀取與寫入權限。

results = query.execute(Database.SHARED);
References
[1] ExoLab Group Castor JDO - Best practice
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 265
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.5 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[13] 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
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
desc.structural.java.castor_bad_practices_query_mode_not_read_only
Abstract
Castor 查詢不會明確定義查詢模式。
Explanation
依照預設,Castor 會在共享模式中執行查詢。因為共享模式允許讀取與寫入權限,無法得知該查詢要使用哪一種作業。如果要在唯讀環境中使用該物件,共用存取就會加重額外不必要的效能負荷。

範例 1:下列範例不會指定查詢模式。

results = query.execute(); //missing query mode
References
[1] ExoLab Group Castor JDO - Best practice
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 265
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.5 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[13] 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
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
desc.semantic.java.castor_bad_practices_unspecified_query_mode
Abstract
明確的垃圾回收機制的要求,可以預示效能可能出現的問題。
Explanation
幾乎每個 .NET 開發人員都會遇到這樣的情況,有時候一個看上去十分蹊蹺、不能理解且無法除錯的問題,似乎只能把原因歸咎於垃圾回收機制上。特別是當問題與 Time and State 相關的時候,可以根據經驗事實的推斷來支持此理論:有時候在程式中插入 GC.Collect() 呼叫,問題似乎就解決了。

在大部分我們所遇過的情況下,呼叫 GC.Collect() 是錯誤的行為。事實上,過於頻繁的呼叫 GC.Collect() 會帶來效能問題。
References
[1] Scott Holden The perils of GC.Collect()
[2] Rico Mariani Performance Tidbits
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[32] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.structural.dotnet.code_correctness_call_to_gc_collect
Abstract
明確的垃圾回收機制的要求,可以預示效能可能出現的問題。
Explanation
幾乎每個 Java 開發人員都會遇到這樣的情況,有時候一個看上去十分蹊蹺、不能理解且無法除錯的問題,似乎只能把原因歸咎於垃圾回收機制上。特別是當問題與 Time and State 相關的時候,可以根據經驗事實的推斷來支持此理論:有時候在程式中插入 System.gc() 呼叫,問題似乎就解決了。

在大部分我們所遇過的情況下,呼叫 System.gc() 是錯誤的行為。事實上,過於頻繁的呼叫 System.gc() 會帶來效能問題。
References
[1] D. H. Hovermeyer FindBugs User Manual
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[31] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.structural.java.code_correctness_call_to_system_gc
Abstract
已在未實作 Equals() 的物件上呼叫 Equals()
Explanation
比較物件時,開發人員通常會想要比較物件的特性。不過,在未明確執行 Equals() 的類別 (或任何上層類別/介面) 上呼叫 Equals(),會造成對繼承自 System.ObjectEquals() 方法的呼叫。Object.Equals() 會比較兩個物件實例來確認物件是否相同,而不是比較物件成員欄位或其他特性。雖然有合法的 Object.Equals() 使用,但是這通常表示程式碼錯誤。

範例 1:

public class AccountGroup
{
private int gid;

public int Gid
{
get { return gid; }
set { gid = value; }
}
}
...
public class CompareGroup
{
public bool compareGroups(AccountGroup group1, AccountGroup group2)
{
return group1.Equals(group2); //Equals() is not implemented in AccountGroup
}
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
desc.structural.dotnet.code_correctness_class_does_not_implement_equals
Abstract
已在未實作 equals() 的物件上呼叫 equals() 方法。
Explanation
比較物件時,開發人員通常會想要比較物件的特性。不過,在未明確執行 equals() 的類別 (或任何上層類別/介面) 上呼叫 equals(),會造成對繼承自 java.lang.Objectequals() 方法的呼叫。Object.equals() 會比較兩個物件實例來確認物件是否相同,而不是比較物件成員欄位或其他特性。雖然有合法的 Object.equals() 使用,但是這通常表示程式碼錯誤。

範例 1:

public class AccountGroup
{
private int gid;

public int getGid()
{
return gid;
}

public void setGid(int newGid)
{
gid = newGid;
}
}
...
public class CompareGroup
{
public boolean compareGroups(AccountGroup group1, AccountGroup group2)
{
return group1.equals(group2); //equals() is not implemented in AccountGroup
}
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
desc.structural.java.code_correctness_class_does_not_implement_equals
Abstract
finalize() 方法應該呼叫 super.finalize()
Explanation
Java 語言編程規範 (Java Language Specification) 中指出,在 finalize() 方法中呼叫 super.finalize() 方法是一種非常好的做法 [1]。

範例 1: 下列方法沒有呼叫 super.finalize()


protected void finalize() {
discardNative();
}
References
[1] J. Gosling, B. Joy, G. Steele, G. Bracha The Java Language Specification, Second Edition Addison-Wesley
[2] MET12-J. Do not use finalizers CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 568
desc.structural.java.code_correctness_erroneous_finalize_method
Abstract
針對序列化中所使用的方法,使用不正確的方法簽章,可能會導致永遠不會呼叫此方法。
Explanation
當可序列化類別建立序列化或還原序列化函數但未遵循正確的簽章時,會發生「程式碼正確性:不正確的可序列化方法簽章」問題:


private void writeObject(java.io.ObjectOutputStream out) throws IOException;
private void readObject(java.io.ObjectInputStream in) throws IOException, ClassNotFoundException;
private void readObjectNoData() throws ObjectStreamException;


違反序列化所需要的方法簽章,可能意味著在序列化/還原序列化期間永遠不會呼叫此方法,進而導致序列化/還原序列化不完整,也可能意味著,不可信賴的程式碼可能會取得物件的存取權。
若有異常未拋出,則可能意味著序列化/還原序列化失敗並導致應用程式當機,或者甚至可能悄然失敗以致物件可能僅部分正確建構,從而導致對漏洞進行除錯變得極為困難。呼叫者應捕捉這些異常,以便不正確的序列化/還原序列化能夠得以適當處理,且不會出現當機或部分建構的物件。
References
[1] SER01-J. Do not deviate from the proper signatures of serialization methods CERT
desc.structural.java.code_correctness_incorrect_serializable_method_signature
Abstract
Servlet 的輸出串流交付之後,將串流緩衝區重設或執行重新交付給串流的任何其他動作等,都是錯誤的。同樣地,在呼叫 getOutputStream 之後呼叫 getWriter() 或 (反之亦然) 也是錯誤的。
Explanation
發送 HttpServletRequest、重新導向 HttpServletResponse 或排清 Servlet 的輸出串流緩衝區等,都會造成相關的串流交付。任何後續的緩衝區重設或串流交付時 (例如其他排清或重新導向),將造成 IllegalStateException

此外,Java Servlet 會允許使用 ServletOutputStreamPrintWriter (但不是兩者同時),將資料重新寫入回應串流。呼叫 getOutputStream() 之後呼叫 getWriter() (反之亦然) 也會造成 IllegalStateException



在執行階段,IllegalStateException 可防止回應處理常式執行完成,以有效撤銷回應。這樣可能會造成伺服器不穩定,而這是錯誤執行的 Servlet 徵兆。

範例 1:以下程式碼在 Servlet 回應輸出串流緩衝區排清後,將 Servlet 回應重新導向。

public class RedirectServlet extends HttpServlet {
public void doGet(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse res) throws ServletException, IOException {
...
OutputStream out = res.getOutputStream();
...
// flushes, and thereby commits, the output stream
out.flush();
out.close(); // redirecting the response causes an IllegalStateException
res.sendRedirect("http://www.acme.com");
}
}
範例 2:相反地,以下程式碼嘗試在發送要求之後寫入和排清 PrintWriter 的緩衝區。

public class FlushServlet extends HttpServlet {
public void doGet(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse res) throws ServletException, IOException {
...
// forwards the request, implicitly committing the stream
getServletConfig().getServletContext().getRequestDispatcher("/jsp/boom.jsp").forward(req, res);
...

// IllegalStateException; cannot redirect after forwarding
res.sendRedirect("http://www.acme.com/jsp/boomboom.jsp");

PrintWriter out = res.getWriter();

// writing to an already-committed stream will not cause an exception,
// but will not apply these changes to the final output, either
out.print("Writing here does nothing");

// IllegalStateException; cannot flush a response's buffer after forwarding the request
out.flush();
out.close();
}
}
References
[1] IllegalStateException in a Servlet - when & why do we get?
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
desc.controlflow.java.code_correctness_multiple_stream_commits
Abstract
Content-Length 表頭設為負數。
Explanation
在多數狀況下,設定要求的 Content-Length 表頭即表示開發人員想要
溝通傳送到伺服器的 POST 資料長度。但是,此表頭應為 0 或者
正整數。

範例 1:下列程式碼將設定不正確的 Content-Length

URL url = 新 URL(「http://www.example.com」);
HttpURLConnection huc = (HttpURLConnection)url.openConnection();
huc.setRequestProperty("Content-Length", "-1000");
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[2] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[3] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
desc.structural.java.api_abuse_code_correctness_negative_content_length
Abstract
Content-Length 表頭設為負數。
Explanation
在多數狀況下,設定要求的 Content-Length 表頭即表示開發人員想要
溝通傳送到伺服器的 POST 資料長度。但是,此表頭應為 0 或者
正整數。

範例 1:下列程式碼將 Content-Length 表頭錯設為負數:

xhr.setRequestHeader("Content-Length", "-1000");
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[2] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[3] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
desc.structural.javascript.api_abuse_code_correctness_negative_content_length
Abstract
ToString() 在陣列上受到呼叫。
Explanation
在多數案例中,於陣列上呼叫 ToString() 表示開發人員有意將陣列內容做為字串回傳。不過,在陣列上直接呼叫 ToString(),將會回傳包含陣列類型的字串值。

範例 1:以下程式碼將輸出 System.String[]

String[] stringArray = { "element 1", "element 2", "element 3", "element 4" };
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(stringArray.ToString());
References
[1] Class Arrays Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
desc.structural.dotnet.code_correctness_tostring_on_array
Abstract
toString() 在陣列上受到呼叫。
Explanation
在多數案例中,於陣列上呼叫 toString() 表示開發人員有意將陣列內容做為字串回傳。不過,在陣列上直接呼叫 toString(),將會回傳記憶體中包含陣列類型和雜湊碼的字串值。
範例 1:下列程式碼將輸出 [Ljava.lang.String;@1232121

String[] strList = new String[5];
...
System.out.println(strList);
References
[1] Class Arrays Sun Microsystems
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
desc.structural.java.code_correctness_tostring_on_array