284 找到的項目
弱點
Abstract
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
Explanation
重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會利用重新導向協助站點內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至可由攻擊控制的任何任意 URL 時,會發生開放式重新導向弱點。

攻擊者可能利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪可信任網站的 URL,但接著會將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例 1:當使用者按一下連結時,下列 ABAP 程式碼會指示使用者的瀏覽器開啟從 dest 要求參數解析的 URL。


...
DATA: str_dest TYPE c.

str_dest = request->get_form_field( 'dest' ).
response->redirect( str_dest ).
...


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示他們開啟連結「http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com」,則該使用者可能會按下此連結,並認為自己會前往一個可信任的網站。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼會將瀏覽器重新導向至「http://www.wilyhacker.com」。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,以確定該連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者使用 Hex 以下列方式編碼目標的 URL:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

那麼,即使再有經驗的終端使用者也可能會被誘騙進入以下連結。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] 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
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.abap.open_redirect
Abstract
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
Explanation
重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會利用重新導向協助站點內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至可由攻擊控制的任何任意 URL 時,會發生開放式重新導向弱點。

攻擊者可能利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪可信任網站的 URL,但接著會將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例 1:使用者按一下連結時,下列 ActionScript 程式碼就會指示使用者的瀏覽器開啟從 dest 要求參數所讀取的 URL。


...
var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var strDest:String = String(params["dest"]);
host.updateLocation(strDest);
...


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示他們開啟連結「http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com」,則該使用者可能會按下此連結,並認為自己會前往一個可信任的網站。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼會將瀏覽器重新導向至「http://www.wilyhacker.com」。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,以確定該連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者使用 Hex 以下列方式編碼目標的 URL:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

那麼,即使再有經驗的終端使用者也可能會被誘騙進入以下連結。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] 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
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.actionscript.open_redirect
Abstract
某個檔案會將未經驗證的資料傳遞到 HTTP 重新導向。
Explanation
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中所使用的 URL 有助於網路釣魚攻擊。重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會使用重新導向協助站台內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至攻擊者可以控制的任意 URL 時,會發生 Open Redirect 弱點。

攻擊者可能利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪可信任網站的 URL,但接著會將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例 1:以下 Visualforce 動作方法會傳回 PageReference 物件,其包含來自 dest 要求參數的 URL。


public PageReference pageAction() {
...
PageReference ref = ApexPages.currentPage();
Map<String,String> params = ref.getParameters();
return new PageReference(params.get('dest'));
}


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示其開啟連結「http://trusted.vf.force.com/apex/vfpage?dest=www.wilyhacker.com」,則該使用者可能會按下此連結,並認為自己會前往一個可信任的網站。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼會將瀏覽器重新導向至「http://www.wilyhacker.com」。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要始終檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,並確定連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者以下列方式編碼的目的地 URL:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

那麼,即使再有經驗的一般使用者也可能會被誘騙而點閱連結。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] 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
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.apex.open_redirect
Abstract
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
Explanation
重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會利用重新導向協助站點內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至可由攻擊控制的任何任意 URL 時,會發生開放式重新導向弱點。

攻擊者可能利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪可信任網站的 URL,但接著會將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例 1:當使用者按一下連結時,下列程式碼會指示使用者的瀏覽器開啟 dest 要求參數所解析的 URL。


String redirect = Request["dest"];
Response.Redirect(redirect);


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示其開啟連結「http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com」,則該使用者可能會按下此連結,並認為自己會前往一個可信任的網站。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼會將瀏覽器重新導向至「http://www.wilyhacker.com」。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,以確定該連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者以下列方式編碼目標的 URL:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

那麼,即使再有經驗的終端使用者也可能會被誘騙進入以下連結。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] 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
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.dotnet.open_redirect
Abstract
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中所使用的 URL 有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
Explanation
重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會利用重新導向協助站台內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至可由攻擊控制的任何任意 URL 時,會發生 Open Redirect 弱點。

攻擊者可能利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪可信任網站的 URL,但接著會將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例 1:當使用者按一下連結時,下列 JSP 程式碼會指示使用者的瀏覽器開啟從 dest 要求參數剖析的 URL。


...
final server = await HttpServer.bind(host, port);
await for (HttpRequest request in server) {
final response = request.response;
final headers = request.headers;
final strDest = headers.value('strDest');
response.headers.contentType = ContentType.text;
response.redirect(Uri.parse(strDest!));
await response.close();
}
...


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示他們開啟連結「http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com」,則該使用者可能會按下此連結,並認為自己會前往一個可信任的網站。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼會將瀏覽器重新導向至「http://www.wilyhacker.com」。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要始終檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,以確定連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者使用 Hex 以下列方式編碼目標的 URL:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

那麼,即使再有經驗的一般使用者也可能會被誘騙而點閱連結。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] 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
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.dart.open_redirect
Abstract
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中所使用的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
Explanation
重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會利用重新導向協助站台內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至攻擊者可以控制的任意 URL 時,會發生 Open Redirect 弱點。

攻擊者可利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪受信任網站的 URL,然後將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例:當使用者按一下連結時,下列程式碼會指示使用者的瀏覽器開啟從 dest 要求參數剖析的 URL。


...
strDest := r.Form.Get("dest")
http.Redirect(w, r, strDest, http.StatusSeeOther)
...


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示他們造訪連結 "http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com",則該使用者可能會按下此連結,並認為自己會前往一個可信任的網站。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼會將瀏覽器重新導向至 "http://www.wilyhacker.com"。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要始終檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,以確定連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者使用 Hex 以下列方式編碼目的地 URL:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

那麼,即使再有經驗的一般使用者也可能會被誘騙造訪連結。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] 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
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.golang.open_redirect
Abstract
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中所使用的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
Explanation
重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會利用重新導向協助站台內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至可由攻擊控制的任何任意 URL 時,會發生 Open Redirect 弱點。

攻擊者可能利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪可信任網站的 URL,但接著會將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例 1:當使用者按一下連結時,下列 Spring WebFlow 流程狀態定義會指示使用者的瀏覽器開啟由 dest 要求參數所解析的 URL。


<end-state id="redirectView" view="externalRedirect:#{requestParameters.dest}" />


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示其開啟連結「http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect?dest=www.wilyhacker.com」,則該使用者可能會按下此連結,並認為自己會前往一個可信任的網站。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼會將瀏覽器重新導向至「http://www.wilyhacker.com」。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要始終檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,以確定連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者使用 Hex 以下列方式編碼目標的 URL:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

那麼,即使再有經驗的一般使用者也可能會被誘騙而點閱連結。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] 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
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.configuration.java.open_redirect
Abstract
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
Explanation
重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會利用重新導向協助站點內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至可由攻擊控制的任何任意 URL 時,會發生開放式重新導向弱點。

攻擊者可能利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪可信任網站的 URL,但接著會將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例 1:當使用者按一下連結時,以下 JavaScript 程式碼會指示使用者的瀏覽器開啟由 dest 要求參數所讀取的 URL。


...
strDest = form.dest.value;
window.open(strDest,"myresults");
...


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示他們開啟連結「http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com」,則該使用者可能會按下此連結,並認為自己會前往一個可信任的網站。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼會將瀏覽器重新導向至「http://www.wilyhacker.com」。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,以確定該連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者使用 Hex 以下列方式編碼目標的 URL:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

那麼,即使再有經驗的終端使用者也可能會被誘騙進入以下連結。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] 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
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.javascript.open_redirect
Abstract
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
Explanation
重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會利用重新導向協助站點內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至可由攻擊控制的任何任意 URL 時,會發生開放式重新導向弱點。

攻擊者可能利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪可信任網站的 URL,但接著會將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例 1:當使用者按一下連結時,下列 PHP 程式碼會指示使用者的瀏覽器開啟 dest 要求參數所解析的 URL。


<%
...
$strDest = $_GET["dest"];
header("Location: " . $strDest);
...
%>


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示其開啟連結「http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.php?dest=www.wilyhacker.com」,則該使用者可能會按下此連結,並認為自己會前往一個可信任的網站。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼會將瀏覽器重新導向至「http://www.wilyhacker.com」。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,以確定該連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者使用 Hex 以下列方式編碼目標的 URL:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.php?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

那麼,即使再有經驗的終端使用者也可能會被誘騙進入以下連結。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] 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
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.php.open_redirect
Abstract
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
Explanation
重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會利用重新導向協助站台內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至可由攻擊控制的任何任意 URL 時,會發生開放式重新導向弱點。

攻擊者可能利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪可信任網站的 URL,但接著會將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例 1:當使用者按下連結時,下列程序會指示使用者的瀏覽器開啟 dest 要求參數所解析的 URL。


...
-- Assume QUERY_STRING looks like dest=http://www.wilyhacker.com
dest := SUBSTR(OWA_UTIL.get_cgi_env('QUERY_STRING'), 6);
OWA_UTIL.redirect_url('dest');
...


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示其開啟連結「http://trusted.example.com/pls/hr/showemps?dest=www.wilyhacker.com」,則該使用者可能會按下此連結,並認為自己會前往一個可信任的網站。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼會將瀏覽器重新導向至「http://www.wilyhacker.com」。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,以確定該連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者使用 Hex 以下列方式編碼目標的 URL:
"http://trusted.example.com/pls/hr/showemps?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

那麼,即使再有經驗的終端使用者也可能會被誘騙進入以下連結。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] 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
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.sql.open_redirect
Abstract
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
Explanation
重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會利用重新導向協助站點內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至可由攻擊控制的任何任意 URL 時,會發生開放式重新導向弱點。

攻擊者可能利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪可信任網站的 URL,但接著會將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例 1:當使用者按一下連結時,下列 Python 程式碼會指示使用者的瀏覽器開啟 dest 要求參數所解析的 URL。


...
strDest = request.field("dest")
redirect(strDest)
...


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示他們開啟連結「http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com」,則該使用者可能會按下此連結,並認為自己會前往一個可信任的網站。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼會將瀏覽器重新導向至「http://www.wilyhacker.com」。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,以確定該連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者使用 Hex 以下列方式編碼目標的 URL:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

那麼,即使再有經驗的終端使用者也可能會被誘騙進入以下連結。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] 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
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.python.open_redirect
Abstract
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
Explanation
重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會利用重新導向協助站點內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至可由攻擊控制的任何任意 URL 時,會發生開放式重新導向弱點。

攻擊者可能利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪可信任網站的 URL,但接著會將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例 1:以下 Ruby 程式碼指示使用者的瀏覽器開啟 dest 要求參數所解析的 URL:


...
str_dest = req.params['dest']
...
res = Rack::Response.new
...
res.redirect("http://#{dest}")
...


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示他們開啟連結「http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com」,則該使用者可能會按下此連結,並認為自己會前往一個可信任的網站。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼會將瀏覽器重新導向至「http://www.wilyhacker.com」。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,以確定該連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者使用 Hex 以下列方式編碼目標的 URL:
"http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

那麼,即使再有經驗的終端使用者也可能會被誘騙進入以下連結。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] 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
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.ruby.open_redirect
Abstract
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
Explanation
重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會利用重新導向協助站台內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至可由攻擊控制的任何任意 URL 時,會發生開放式重新導向弱點。

攻擊者可能利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪可信任網站的 URL,但接著會將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例 1:以下 Play 控制項方法指示使用者的瀏覽器開啟從 dest 要求參數解析的 URL:


def myAction = Action { implicit request =>
...
request.getQueryString("dest") match {
case Some(location) => Redirect(location)
case None => Ok("No url found!")
}
...
}


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示他們開啟連結「http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com」,則該使用者可能會按下此連結,並認為自己會前往一個可信任的網站。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼會將瀏覽器重新導向至「http://www.wilyhacker.com」。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,以確定該連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者使用 Hex 以下列方式編碼目標的 URL:
「http://trusted.example.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D」

那麼,即使再有經驗的一般使用者也可能會被誘騙進入以下連結。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] 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
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.scala.open_redirect
Abstract
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
Explanation
重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會利用重新導向協助站點內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至可能遭攻擊者控制的任意 URL 時,會發生開放式重新導向弱點。

攻擊者可能利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪可信任網站的 URL,但接著會將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例 1:以下程式碼會處理使用應用程式自訂 URL 架構的任何要求,將 requestToLoad 設定為指向原始 URL 的「dest」參數 (如果存在的話) 以及指向使用 http:// 架構的原始 URL,最後在 WKWebView 內載入此要求:

AppDelegate.swift:

...
let requestToLoad : String
...
func application(app: UIApplication, openURL url: NSURL, options: [String : AnyObject]) -> Bool {
...
if let urlComponents = NSURLComponents(URL: url, resolvingAgainstBaseURL: false) {
if let queryItems = urlComponents.queryItems as? [NSURLQueryItem]{
for queryItem in queryItems {
if queryItem.name == "dest" {
if let value = queryItem.value {
request = NSURLRequest(URL:NSURL(string:value))
requestToLoad = request
break
}
}
}
}
if requestToLoad == nil {
urlComponents.scheme = "http"
requestToLoad = NSURLRequest(URL:urlComponents.URL)
}
}
...
}
...


ViewController.swift

...
let webView : WKWebView
let appDelegate = UIApplication.sharedApplication().delegate as! AppDelegate
webView.loadRequest(appDelegate.requestToLoad)
...


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示其開啟連結「custom_url_scheme://innocent_url?dest=www.wilyhacker.com」,使用者可能會按下該連結,並認為會執行無害的動作。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼將會嘗試在 WKWebView 中要求並載入「http://www.wilyhacker.com」。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,以確定該連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者使用 Hex 以下列方式編碼目標的 URL:

"custom_url_scheme://innocent_url?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

那麼,即使再有經驗的終端使用者也可能會被誘騙進入以下連結。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] 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
[24] 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
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.swift.open_redirect
Abstract
允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
Explanation
重新導向會在相同 Web 應用程式中將使用者導引到不同的網頁,或導引到外部網站。應用程式會利用重新導向協助站點內的導覽,且在某些情況下,會追蹤使用者離開網站的方法。Web 應用程式將用戶端重新導向至可由攻擊控制的任何任意 URL 時,會發生開放式重新導向弱點。

攻擊者可能利用 Open Redirect 誘騙使用者造訪可信任網站的 URL,但接著會將其重新導向至惡意網站。透過對 URL 進行編碼,攻擊者可讓一般使用者難以注意到重新導向的惡意目標,即使將這個目標當作 URL 參數傳遞到受信任的網站也是如此。Open Redirect 通常為網路釣魚所使用的方法之一,可用來取得敏感的一般使用者資料。

範例 1:當使用者按一下連結時,下列 VB 程式碼會指示使用者的瀏覽器開啟由 dest 要求參數所解析的 URL。


...
strDest = Request.Form('dest')
HyperLink.NavigateTo strDest
...


如果受害者收到一封電子郵件,指示其開啟連結「http://www.trustedsite.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=www.wilyhacker.com」,則該使用者可能會按下此連結,並認為自己會前往一個可信任的網站。不過,當受害者按下連結時,Example 1 中的程式碼會將瀏覽器重新導向至「http://www.wilyhacker.com」。

許多使用者一直以來都被告知,要檢查在電子郵件中所接收到的 URL,以確定該連結是指向他們知悉的可信任網站。不過,如果攻擊者使用 Hex 以下列方式編碼目標的 URL:
"http://www.trustedsite.com/ecommerce/redirect.asp?dest=%77%69%6C%79%68%61%63%6B%65%72%2E%63%6F%6D"

那麼,即使再有經驗的終端使用者也可能會被誘騙進入以下連結。
References
[1] Phishers use IRS tax refund as bait CNet News
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[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
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] 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
[25] 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
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.vb.open_redirect
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 - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 99
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API2 Broken Authentication
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] 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
[29] 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
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.intent_manipulation_redirection
Abstract
將未經驗證的資料寫入 Open XML 文件中可以讓攻擊者得以變更基礎 XML 的結構和內容。
Explanation
XML Injection:Open XML 發生於:

1.資料從一個不可信賴的來源進入程式。


2.將資料寫入 Open XML 文件。

Open XML 文件一般用來儲存資訊以呈現給他人,並且通常包含敏感資訊。

如果攻擊者有能力撰寫未經處理的 XML,即有可能更改 Open XML 文件的語義。在大部分不具惡意的情況中,攻擊者會插入外來的標籤,並造成 Open XML 解析器拋出一個異常。在較為惡意的 XML injection 情況下,攻擊者會修改、新增或移除指定重要資訊的 XML 元素。在某些情況下,XML injection 甚至可能導致 Cross-Site Scripting 或 Dynamic Code Evaluation。

範例 1:

假設攻擊者可以從下列 Open XML 文件控制 a:t 標籤。

<a:t>YoY results: up 10%</a:t>


現在,假設此 XML 包含在公司為其股東提供的 Powerpoint 簡報中。在此情況下,公司提供將文件上傳到其面向客戶的網站的服務,該網站內部存在 XML injection 漏洞。假設攻擊者修改文件以指示「YoY 結果:下降 10%」。此重大更新可能會導致公司股價大幅波動。即使不做任何修改,在變得眾所周知之前可以存取此機密資訊的使用者也可以使他們能夠像在進行內部交易一樣在股市上利用此資訊。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 91
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.10 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[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 - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3810 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3810 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3810 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3810 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3810 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3810 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002550 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 XML Injection (WASC-23)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.xml_injection_open_xml
Abstract
若允許使用者透過網路目錄直接呼叫 PHP 解譯器,可能會讓攻擊者略過權限檢查並存取伺服器中受保護的檔案。
Explanation
如果將 PHP 解譯器當作 CGI 二位元程式來安裝,則對 PHP 資源的要求通常會被 Web 伺服器重新導向到該解譯器。在此情況下,當使用者要求 http://www.example.com/content/page.php,伺服器會先對/content 目錄執行必要的 access control 檢查,然後再將 access control 重新導向到 PHP 解譯器,同時發出對 http://www.example.com/cgi-bin/php/content/page.php 的要求。

如果停用 cgi.force_redirect (該選項在預設情況下為啟用),則擁有/cgi-bin/php 存取權的攻擊者可以使用 PHP 解譯器的權限來存取任意的 Web 文件,便可略過任何由伺服器所執行的 access control 檢查。
References
[1] M. Achour et al. PHP Manual
[2] PHP Security Consortium PhpSecInfo Test Information
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 305
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[15] 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), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A10 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A8 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 7.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.10, Requirement 7.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.1
[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 - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3480.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3480.1 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3480.1 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3480.1 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3480.1 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3480.1 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3480.1 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.structural.php.php_misconfiguration_cgi_force_redirect
Abstract
將密碼做為 HTTP 重新導向的一部分傳送時,將造成密碼顯示、記錄或儲存在快取中。
Explanation
HTTP 重新導向會導致使用者的網路瀏覽器發出 HTTP GET 要求。按照慣例,通常不會將與 HTTP GET 要求相關的參數視為敏感資料,因此網路伺服器會記錄這些資料,貯存快取在代理伺服器,而網路瀏覽器也不會刻意隱瞞它們。將密碼或其他敏感資料做為重新導向的一部分進行傳送,可能會引起資料的誤用或者被攻擊者取得。

範例 1:

response.sendRedirect("j_security_check?j_username="+usr+"&j_password="+pass);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 359
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [4] CWE ID 200
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [7] CWE ID 200
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [20] CWE ID 200
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000196, CCI-000197, CCI-001199, CCI-002361
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-12 Session Termination (P2), IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-12 Session Termination, IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 8.2.2 Client-side Data Protection (L1 L2 L3), 8.3.4 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.1 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 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 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II, APP3330 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II, APP3330 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II, APP3330 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II, APP3330 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II, APP3330 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II, APP3330 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II, APP3330 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000060 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-001750 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.semantic.java.password_management_redirect
Abstract
open_basedir 配置指定可以變更的工作目錄。
Explanation
若存在 open_basedir 配置選項,該選項會試圖阻止 PHP 程式對 php.ini 中所指定的目錄結構以外的檔案執行操作。如果使用 . 指定工作目錄,攻擊者可使用 chdir() 予以變更。

雖然 open_basedir 選項可保證系統的安全性,但其執行方式卻受到 race condition 的不利影響,這可能會讓攻擊者在某些情況下略過該選項所定義的限制[2]。PHP 執行存取權限檢查和開啟檔案間,會存在 time-of-check、time-of-use (TOCTOU) race condition。與其他語言中 file system 的 race condition 相同,此種情況會讓攻擊者將指向透過 access control 檢查的 symlink 替換成另一個原來不能通過測試的檔案,以取得受保護檔案的存取權。

此類攻擊針對的弱點大小視執行存取檢查和開啟檔案間的時間長短而定。即使連續執行呼叫,現今的作業系統也無法保證在處理程序讓出 CPU 之前執行的程式碼數量。攻擊者有許多技術來加長時間長度,使得盜取攻擊更加容易,但即使是很小的時間長度,此攻擊企圖也可以不斷的重複,直到成功為止。
References
[1] M. Achour et al. PHP Manual
[2] Stefan Esser PHP open_basedir Race Condition Vulnerability
[3] Artur Maj Securing PHP
[4] Emmanuel Dreyfus Securing Systems with Chroot
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[7] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.2 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.4.4 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A10 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A8 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 7.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.10, Requirement 7.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[30] 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
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3480.1 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3480.1 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3480.1 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3480.1 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3480.1 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3480.1 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3480.1 CAT I
[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 4.1 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 - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.structural.php.php_misconfiguration_poor_open_basedir_configuration
Abstract
若給予 PHP 程式存取整個 file system 的權限,可讓攻擊者讀取、寫入或建立他們原本不該擁有存取權的檔案。
Explanation
若啟用 open_basedir 組態選項,該選項會試圖阻止 PHP 程式對 php.ini 中所指定的目錄結構以外的檔案執行操作。如果沒有使用 open_basedir 選項指定任何目錄,則在 PHP 下執行的程式將被授予擁有本地 file system 上所有檔案的完整存取權,這會使攻擊者可讀取、寫入或建立他們原本不該擁有存取權的檔案。

若無法透過 open_basedir 指定限制的目錄集,可能會讓攻擊者更容易發動其他盜取攻擊。

雖然 open_basedir 選項可保證系統的安全性,但其執行方式卻受到 race condition 的不利影響,這可能會讓攻擊者在某些情況下略過該選項所定義的限制[2]。PHP 執行存取權限檢查和開啟檔案間,會存在 time-of-check、time-of-use (TOCTOU) race condition。與其他語言中 file system 的 race condition 相同,此種情況會讓攻擊者將指向透過 access control 檢查的 symlink 替換成另一個原來不能通過測試的檔案,以取得受保護檔案的存取權。

此類攻擊針對的弱點大小視執行存取檢查和開啟檔案間的時間長短而定。即使連續執行呼叫,現今的作業系統也無法保證在處理程序讓出 CPU 之前執行的程式碼數量。攻擊者有許多技術來加長時間長度,使得盜取攻擊更加容易,但即使是很小的時間長度,此攻擊企圖也可以不斷的重複,直到成功為止。
References
[1] M. Achour et al. PHP Manual
[2] Stefan Esser PHP open_basedir Race Condition Vulnerability
[3] open_basedir Confusion
[4] Artur Maj Securing PHP
[5] Emmanuel Dreyfus Securing Systems with Chroot
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 284
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.2 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.4.4 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A10 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A8 Failure to Restrict URL Access
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 7.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.10, Requirement 7.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 7.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[31] 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3480.1 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3480.1 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3480.1 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3480.1 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3480.1 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3480.1 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3480.1 CAT I
[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 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.config.php.php_misconfiguration_open_basedir
Abstract
程式定義了過度許可的 Cross-Origin Opener Policy (COOP)
Explanation
由於 Spectre 和 Meltdown 等弱點導致側通道攻擊的存在,因此強制執行指定 Web 文件的資料隱私變得非常重要。Cross-Origin Opener Policy (COOP) 的建立就是為了幫助防止因側通道攻擊而導致敏感資訊暴露。具體來說,COOP 可以強制執行文件瀏覽情境群組與其他外部文件 (例如彈出視窗) 的隔離。

範例 1:以下程式碼顯示 Django 架構中不安全的 COOP 設定 'unsafe-none'。由於側通道攻擊,這可能會允許外部文件存取來源文件的瀏覽情境群組的私有資料。


SECURE_CROSS_ORIGIN_OPENER_POLICY = 'unsafe-none'
References
[1] Eiji Kitamura, Domenic Denicola Why you need "cross-origin isolated" for powerful features
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 346
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001368, CCI-001414
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[8] 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)
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.6 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Abuse of Functionality (WASC-42)
desc.structural.python.html5_insecure_cross_origin_opener_policy
Abstract
Terraform 組態不會將 URL 對應流量從 HTTP 重新導向到 HTTPS。
Explanation
URL 對應是一組規則,用於將傳入 HTTP(S) 要求路由到特定的後端服務。依預設,URL 對應接受未加密和不安全的連線。這類的連線會將資料暴露於未經授權存取、潛在竊取和竄改的風險。

範例 1:以下範例顯示一個 Terraform 組態,其透過將 https_redirect 設為 false 來定義 URL 對應,以允許用戶端使用 HTTP 進行通訊。

resource "google_compute_url_map" "urlmap" {
...
default_url_redirect {
...
https_redirect = false
...
}
...
}
References
[1] HashiCorp compute_url_map
[2] HashiCorp compute_region_url_map
[3] Google Cloud Use URL maps
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000068, CCI-001453, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422, CCI-002890, CCI-003123
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SC
[7] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-17 Remote Access (P1), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-17 Remote Access, MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.1 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[16] 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
[17] 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
[18] 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
[19] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[20] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[21] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[22] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[23] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.gcp_terraform_misconfiguration_url_map_missing_http_to_https_redirect
Abstract
Terraform 組態不會將邊緣快取通訊從 HTTP 重新導向到 HTTPS。
Explanation
依預設,邊緣快取服務接受未加密和不安全的連線。這類的連線會將資料暴露於未經授權存取、潛在竊取和竄改的風險。

範例 1:以下範例顯示一個 Terraform 組態,其透過將 https_redirect 設為 false 來定義邊緣快取服務,以允許用戶端使用 HTTP 進行通訊。

resource "google_network_services_edge_cache_service" "srv_demo" {
...
routing {
...
path_matcher {
...
route_rule {
...
url_redirect {
https_redirect = false
}
}
}
}
}
References
[1] HashiCorp google_network_services_edge_cache_service
[2] Google Cloud Redirect all requests to HTTPS
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000068, CCI-001453, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422, CCI-002890, CCI-003123
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SC
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-17 Remote Access (P1), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-17 Remote Access, MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.1 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[15] 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
[16] 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
[17] 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
[18] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[19] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[20] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[21] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[22] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.gcp_terraform_misconfiguration_edge_cache_service_missing_http_to_https_redirect
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應表頭中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP 回應表頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便將其傳送給網頁使用者。

如同其他軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應表頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並且將該名稱設定在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 表頭中。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

Open Redirect: 允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚的攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.abap.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應標頭中包含未經驗證的資料會引發 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1.資料透過不受信任的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。


2.HTTP 回應標頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下便傳送給 Web 使用者。

如同許多軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者將惡意資料傳送至容易受到攻擊的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應標頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在標頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送之回應的剩餘標頭和正文,還允許它們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多新型的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 標頭。例如,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定標頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會擲回 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用換行字元來設定標頭,則您的應用程式面對 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選換行字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 標頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例 1:以下程式碼會設定一個名稱和值可能被攻擊者控制的 HTTP 標頭。


@HttpGet
global static void doGet() {
...
Map<String, String> params = ApexPages.currentPage().getParameters();

RestResponse res = RestContext.response;
res.addHeader(params.get('name'), params.get('value'));
...
}


假設名稱/值對由 authorJane Smith 組成,則包含此標頭的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
author:Jane Smith
...


不過,由於標頭的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而形成,攻擊者可能會提交惡意的名稱/值對 (例如 HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...foobar),然後 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
foo:bar


很明顯,第二個回應完全受到攻擊者所控制,而且可以使用所需的任何標頭和本文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:Cross-user Defacement、Web and Browser Cache Poisoning、Cross-site Scripting 和 Page Hijacking。

Cross-User Defacement:攻擊者可以發出一個要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解讀成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己提交惡意要求;或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的連線到伺服器 (例如共用的 Proxy 伺服器) 的 TCP 連線。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式的行為,但會將隱私資訊 (例如帳號和密碼) 重新導向回攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如 Proxy 伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣地,如果回應快取到單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止,但是只有本機瀏覽器執行個體的使用者會受到影響。

Cross-Site Scripting:在攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應之後,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器所產生且原本應供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。攻擊者藉由提交一個要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,致使中間節點 (例如共用的 Proxy 伺服器) 錯誤地將本應傳送給使用者的伺服器產生的回應傳送給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,因此第一個被解譯為回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個則被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,Proxy 伺服器會使用伺服器針對受害者產生的要求回應伺服器,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應標頭或本文中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與 Cross-Site Request Forgery 之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增合法使用者的 Cookie 或甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

Open Redirect:允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中所使用的 URL 有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.apex.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應表頭中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP 回應表頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便將其傳送給網頁使用者。

如同其他軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應表頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器與框架都可避免惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭中。舉例來說、Microsoft .NET 框架的最新版本可將 CR、LF 與 NULL 字元在傳送至 HttpResponse.AddHeader() 方法時,將其轉換成 %0d、%0a 與 %00。如果您使用了可避免使用新行字元設定表頭的最新版.NET 框架,您的應用程式可能就可以抵擋 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 表頭中設定該名稱。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 Author.Text 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

快取破壞:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

開放式重新導向:允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.dotnet.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應表頭中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement 或 Page Hijacking 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. 在未驗證包含資料的 HTTP 回應表頭是否存在惡意特徵的情況下,便將其傳送給某個網頁使用者。

如同其他軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應表頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例: 以下程式碼區段會從 HTML 表單中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並且將該名稱設定在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 表頭中。


...
EXEC CICS
WEB READ
FORMFIELD(NAME)
VALUE(AUTHOR)
...
END-EXEC.

EXEC CICS
WEB WRITE
HTTPHEADER(COOKIE)
VALUE(AUTHOR)
...
END-EXEC.
...


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

Open Redirect: 允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚的攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.cobol.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應表頭中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是網頁要求。

2. HTTP 回應表頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便將其傳送給網頁使用者。

如同其他軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應表頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定表頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例: 以下的程式碼片段是從網路表單中讀取網誌項目的作者名字 author,並且在 HTTP 回應的 cookie 表頭中設定。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1/1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-site scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,其攻擊在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

Open Redirect: 允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚的攻擊。
References
[1] Amit Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] Diabolic Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.cfml.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應標頭中包含未經驗證的資料會引發 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1.資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2.HTTP 回應標頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下便傳送給 Web 使用者。

如同許多軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者將惡意資料傳送至容易受到攻擊的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應標頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在標頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應的剩餘標頭和本文,還允許他們建立完全在他們控制下的其他回應。

現今許多新型的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 標頭。舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定標頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用換行字元來設定標頭,則您的應用程式面對 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選換行字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 標頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼片段會讀取 HTTP 要求中的 'content-type',並將其設定在新 HTTP 要求的標頭中。


final server = await HttpServer.bind('localhost', 18081);
server.listen((request) async {
final headers = request.headers;
final contentType = headers.value('content-type');
final client = HttpClient();
final clientRequest = await client.getUrl(Uri.parse('https://example.com'));
clientRequest.headers.add('Content-Type', contentType as Object);
});


由於 'Content-Type' 標頭的值由未經驗證的使用者輸入所構成,因此惡意動作執行者可以操縱它來利用漏洞、執行 Code Injection 攻擊、暴露敏感資料、啟用惡意檔案執行或觸發 Denial of Service 情況,從而對應用程式的安全性和穩定性構成重大風險。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] 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
[26] 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
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.dart.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應標頭中包含未經驗證的資料會引發 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1.資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2.HTTP 回應標頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下便傳送給 Web 使用者。

如同許多軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者將惡意資料傳送至容易受到攻擊的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應標頭中。


範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並且將該名稱設定在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 標頭中。


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


攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:Cross-user Defacement, Web and Browser Cache Poisoning, Cross-site Scripting 和 Page Hijacking。

Cross-User Defacement:攻擊者可以發出一個要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解讀成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己提交惡意要求;或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的連線到伺服器 (例如共用的 Proxy 伺服器) 的 TCP 連線。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式的行為,但會將隱私資訊 (例如帳號和密碼) 重新導向回攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如 Proxy 伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣地,如果回應快取到單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止,但是只有本機瀏覽器實例的使用者會受到影響。

Cross-Site Scripting:在攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應之後,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器所產生且原本應供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。攻擊者藉由提交一個要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,致使中間節點 (例如共用的 Proxy 伺服器) 錯誤地將本應傳送給使用者的伺服器產生的回應傳送給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,因此第一個被解譯為回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個則被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,Proxy 伺服器會使用伺服器針對受害者產生的要求回應伺服器,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應標頭或本文中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與 Cross-Site Request Forgery 之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可以變更、新增合法使用者的 Cookie 或甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

Open Redirect:允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中所使用的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[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 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.golang.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應表頭中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP 回應表頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便將其傳送給網頁使用者。

如同其他軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應表頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定表頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並且將該名稱設定在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 表頭中。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

Open Redirect: 允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚的攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.java.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應表頭中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP 回應表頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便將其傳送給網頁使用者。

如同其他軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應表頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並且將該名稱設定在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 表頭中。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:網頁與瀏覽器 Cache Poisoning、Cross-site Scripting 和 Page Hijacking。


Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

Open Redirect: 允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚的攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.javascript.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應表頭中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1.資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。


2.HTTP 回應表頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便將其傳送給網頁使用者。

如同其他軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應表頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定表頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼片段假設 namevalue 可能會被攻擊者控制。此程式碼會設定一個名稱和值可能被攻擊者控制的 HTTP 標頭。


...
NSURLSessionConfiguration * config = [[NSURLSessionConfiguration alloc] init];
NSMutableDictionary *dict = @{};
[dict setObject:value forKey:name];
[config setHTTPAdditionalHeaders:dict];
...


假設名稱/值組由 authorJane Smith 組成,則包含此標頭的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
author:Jane Smith
...


不過,由於標頭的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,攻擊者可能會提交惡意的名稱/值組 (例如 HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...foobar),然後 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
foo:bar


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

快取破壞:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

開放式重新導向:允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.objc.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應表頭中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP 回應表頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便將其傳送給網頁使用者。

如同其他軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應表頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。舉例而言,最新版的 PHP 在新行傳送 header() 至函數時,將會產生警告並停止建立表頭。如果您的 PHP 版本無法使用新行字元設定表頭,您的應用程式可能就可以抵擋 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼片段會讀取 HTTP 要求中的位置,並在 HTTP 回應的表頭位置欄位中設定該位置。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如「index.html」,那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會以下列形式表示:


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


不過,因為位置的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 some_location 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「index.html\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

Open Redirect: 允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚的攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.php.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應表頭中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP 回應表頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便將其傳送給網頁使用者。

如同其他軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應表頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 表頭中設定該名稱。


...
-- Assume QUERY_STRING looks like AUTHOR_PARAM=Name
author := SUBSTR(OWA_UTIL.get_cgi_env('QUERY_STRING'), 14);
OWA_UTIL.mime_header('text/html', false);
OWA_COOKE.send('author', author);
OWA_UTIL.http_header_close;
...


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

快取破壞:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

開放式重新導向:允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.sql.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應表頭中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP 回應表頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便將其傳送給網頁使用者。

如同其他軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應表頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼片段會讀取 HTTP 要求中的位置,並在 HTTP 回應的位置欄位表頭中設定該位置。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如「index.html」,那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會以下列形式表示:


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


不過,因為位置的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 some_location 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「index.html\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

Open Redirect: 允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚的攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.python.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應表頭中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP 回應表頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便將其傳送給網頁使用者。

如同其他軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應表頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定表頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並且將此名稱用於網站其他部分的 GET 要求中。


author = req.params[AUTHOR_PARAM]
http = Net::HTTP.new(URI("http://www.mysite.com"))
http.post('/index.php', "author=#{author}")


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如「Jane Smith」,那麼 HTTP 回應可能會表現為以下形式:


POST /index.php HTTP/1.1
Host: www.mysite.com
author=Jane Smith
...


不過,因為 URL 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元時,回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nPOST /index.php HTTP/1.1\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


POST /index.php HTTP/1.1
Host: www.mysite.com
author=Wiley Hacker

POST /index.php HTTP/1.1
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

Open Redirect: 允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚的攻擊。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] 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
[26] 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
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.ruby.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應標頭中包含未經驗證的資料會引發 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP 回應標頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下便傳送給 Web 使用者。

如同許多軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。 此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者將惡意資料傳送至容易受到攻擊的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應標頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。 為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在標頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。 這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送之回應的剩餘標頭和正文,還允許它們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 標頭。 舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定標頭,Play Framework 會拋出一個異常。 如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用換行字元來設定標頭,則您的應用程式面對 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。 但是,僅篩選換行字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 標頭時,仍需特別注意。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.scala.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應表頭中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1.資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。


2.HTTP 回應表頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便將其傳送給網頁使用者。

如同其他軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應表頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定表頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼片段假設 namevalue 可能會被攻擊者控制。此程式碼會設定一個名稱和值可能被攻擊者控制的 HTTP 標頭。


...
var headers = []
headers[name] = value
let config = NSURLSessionConfiguration.backgroundSessionConfigurationWithIdentifier("com.acme")
config.HTTPAdditionalHeaders = headers
...


假設名稱/值組由 authorJane Smith 組成,則包含此標頭的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
author:Jane Smith
...


不過,由於標頭的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,攻擊者可能會提交惡意的名稱/值組 (例如 HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...foobar),然後 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...
foo:bar


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

快取破壞:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

開放式重新導向:允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.swift.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應表頭中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP 回應表頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便將其傳送給網頁使用者。

如同其他軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應表頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器與框架都可避免惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭中,但是支援典型 ASP 的伺服器通常沒有這項保護機制。

範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 表頭中設定該名稱。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

快取破壞:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

開放式重新導向:允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.vb.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 Cookie 中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 HTTP 回應 Header manipulation,並引發 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect。
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP Cookie 包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便傳送給網頁使用者。

與許多軟體的安全性弱點一樣,Cookie manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是目的本身。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

由於 HTTP 回應表頭,Cookie manipulation 攻擊還會導致其他類型的攻擊,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定表頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並且將該名稱設定在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 表頭中。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Open Redirect: 允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚的攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.abap.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookie 中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 HTTP Response Header Manipulation,並引發 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect。
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1.資料透過不受信任的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。



2.HTTP Cookie 包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便傳送給 Web 使用者。



與許多軟體的安全性弱點一樣,Cookie Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是目的本身。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者將惡意資料傳送至容易受到攻擊的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:與 Cross-Site Request Forgery 之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增合法使用者的 Cookie 或甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

由於 HTTP 回應標頭的緣故,Cookie Manipulation 攻擊還可能導致其他類型的攻擊,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在標頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應的剩餘標頭和本文,還允許他們建立完全在他們控制下的其他回應。

現今許多新型的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 標頭。例如,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定標頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會擲回 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用換行字元來設定標頭,則您的應用程式面對 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選換行字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 標頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例 1:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並且將該名稱設定在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 標頭中。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,例如「Jane Smith」,則包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 Cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而形成,所以只有當傳送給 author 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元時,回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯,第二個回應完全受到攻擊者所控制,而且可以使用所需的任何標頭和本文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:Cross-user Defacement、Web and Browser Cache Poisoning、Cross-site Scripting 和 Page Hijacking。

Cross-User Defacement:攻擊者可以發出一個要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解讀成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己提交惡意要求;或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的連線到伺服器 (例如共用的 Proxy 伺服器) 的 TCP 連線。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式的行為,但會將隱私資訊 (例如帳戶和密碼) 重新導向回攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如 Proxy 伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣地,如果回應快取到單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止,但是只有本機瀏覽器執行個體的使用者會受到影響。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器所產生且原本應供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。攻擊者藉由提交一個要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,致使中間節點 (例如共用的 Proxy 伺服器) 錯誤地將本應傳送給使用者的伺服器產生的回應傳送給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,因此第一個被解譯為回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個則被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,Proxy 伺服器會使用伺服器針對受害者產生的要求回應伺服器,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應標頭或本文中的敏感資訊。

Open Redirect:允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中所使用的 URL 有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.apex.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookie 中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 HTTP 回應 Header manipulation,並引發 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect。
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP Cookie 包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便傳送給網頁使用者。

與許多軟體的安全性弱點一樣,Cookie manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是目的本身。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

由於 HTTP 回應表頭,Cookie manipulation 攻擊還會導致其他類型的攻擊,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定表頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 表頭中設定該名稱。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

快取破壞:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

開放式重新導向:允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.dotnet.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookie 中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 HTTP 回應 Header manipulation,並引發 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect。
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP Cookie 包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便傳送給網頁使用者。

與許多軟體的安全性弱點一樣,Cookie manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是目的本身。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

由於 HTTP 回應表頭,Cookie manipulation 攻擊還會導致其他類型的攻擊,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定表頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並且將該名稱設定在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 表頭中。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Open Redirect: 允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚的攻擊。
References
[1] Amit Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] Diabolic Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.cfml.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookie 中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 HTTP Response Header Manipulation,並引發 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect。
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1.資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2.HTTP Cookie 包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便傳送給 Web 使用者。

與許多軟體的安全性弱點一樣,Cookie Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是目的本身。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者將惡意資料傳送至容易受到攻擊的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:與 Cross-Site Request Forgery 之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可以變更、新增合法使用者的 Cookie 或甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

由於 HTTP 回應標頭的緣故,Cookie Manipulation 攻擊還可能導致其他類型的攻擊,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在標頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送之回應的剩餘標頭和正文,還允許它們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多新型的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 標頭。舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定標頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用換行字元來設定標頭,則您的應用程式面對 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選換行字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 標頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並且將該名稱設定在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 標頭中。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 Cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當提交給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元時,回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如 "Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...",則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯,第二個回應完全受到攻擊者所控制,而且可以使用所需的任何標頭和正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

Cross-User Defacement:攻擊者可以發出一個要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解讀成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己提交惡意要求;或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的連線到伺服器 (例如共用的 Proxy 伺服器) 的 TCP 連線。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式的行為,但會將隱私資訊 (例如帳號和密碼) 重新導向回攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如 Proxy 伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣地,如果回應快取到單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止,但是只有本機瀏覽器實例的使用者會受到影響。

Cross-Site Scripting:在攻擊者控制應用程式傳送的回應之後,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,攻擊者還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器所產生且原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。攻擊者藉由提交一個要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,致使中間節點 (例如共用的 Proxy 服務器) 錯誤地將本應傳送給使用者的伺服器產生的回應傳送給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,因此第一個被解譯為回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個則被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,Proxy 伺服器會使用伺服器針對受害者產生的要求回應伺服器,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應標頭或本文中的敏感資訊。

Open Redirect:允許未經驗證的輸入控制重新導向中所使用的 URL,有助於網路釣魚攻擊。
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] 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
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.golang.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookie 中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 HTTP 回應 Header manipulation,並引發 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect。
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP Cookie 包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便傳送給網頁使用者。

與許多軟體的安全性弱點一樣,Cookie manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是目的本身。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

由於 HTTP 回應表頭,Cookie manipulation 攻擊還會導致其他類型的攻擊,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定表頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例 1:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並且將該名稱設定在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 表頭中。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

有人認為在行動環境中,典型的 Web 應用程式弱點 (例如 Header Manipulation 與 Cookie Manipulation) 不會產生影響,因為使用者為何會攻擊自己呢?但是請謹記,行動平台的本質是從多種來源下載,並在相同裝置上一起執行的應用程式。在金融應用程式旁執行惡意程式碼的可能性很高,這必然會擴大行動應用程式的受攻擊面,將程序之間的通訊包括在內。

範例 2:以下程式碼改寫 Example 1 以適用於 Android 平台。


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

...
跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Open Redirect: 允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚的攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.java.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookie 中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 HTTP 回應 Header manipulation,並引發 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect。
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP Cookie 包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便傳送給網頁使用者。

與許多軟體的安全性弱點一樣,Cookie manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是目的本身。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

由於 HTTP 回應表頭,Cookie manipulation 攻擊還會導致其他類型的攻擊,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定表頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並且將該名稱設定在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 表頭中。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

Cross-User Defacement:攻擊者可以發出一個要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解讀成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己提交惡意要求;或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的連線到伺服器 (例如共用的 Proxy 伺服器) 的 TCP 連線。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式的行為,但會將隱私資訊 (例如帳戶和密碼) 重新導向回攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Open Redirect: 允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚的攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.javascript.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookie 中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 HTTP 回應 Header manipulation,並引發 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect。
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP Cookie 包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便傳送給網頁使用者。

與許多軟體的安全性弱點一樣,Cookie manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是目的本身。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

由於 HTTP 回應表頭,Cookie manipulation 攻擊還會導致其他類型的攻擊,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定表頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並且將該名稱設定在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 表頭中。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Open Redirect: 允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚的攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.php.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 HTTP 回應表頭中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊。
Explanation
Header Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP 回應表頭包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便將其傳送給網頁使用者。

如同其他軟體的安全性弱點,Header Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是一個目的。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP 回應表頭中。

最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼片段會讀取 HTTP 要求中的位置,並在 HTTP 回應的位置欄位表頭中設定該位置。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如「index.html」,那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會以下列形式表示:


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


不過,因為位置的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 some_location 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「index.html\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

Cache Poisoning:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

Open Redirect: 允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚的攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.python.header_manipulation
Abstract
在 Cookie 中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 HTTP Response Header Manipulation,並引發 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect。
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP Cookie 包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便傳送給 Web 使用者。

與許多軟體的安全性弱點一樣,Cookie Manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是目的本身。 此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者將惡意資料傳送至容易受到攻擊的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation: 與 Cross-Site Request Forgery 之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可以變更、新增至合法的使用者 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

作為 HTTP 回應標頭,Cookie Manipulation 攻擊還會引發其他類型的攻擊,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。 為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在標頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。 這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送之回應的剩餘標頭和正文,還允許它們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 標頭。 舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定標頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。 如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用換行字元來設定標頭,則您的應用程式面對 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。 但是,僅篩選換行字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 標頭時,仍需特別注意。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.scala.header_manipulation_cookies
Abstract
在 Cookie 中包含未經驗證的資料會導致 HTTP 回應 Header manipulation,並引發 Cache-Poisoning、Cross-Site Scripting、Cross-User Defacement、Page Hijacking、Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirect。
Explanation
Cookie Manipulation 弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料透過不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式,通常是 HTTP 要求。

2. HTTP Cookie 包含的資料在未經驗證的情況下,便傳送給網頁使用者。

與許多軟體的安全性弱點一樣,Cookie manipulation 是達到目的的一種手段,而不是目的本身。此弱點的基礎很簡單:攻擊者傳送惡意資料至有弱點的應用程式,應用程式再將該資料包含於 HTTP Cookie 中。

Cookie Manipulation:與跨網站偽造要求之類的攻擊結合時,攻擊者可能變更、新增至合法使用者的 Cookie,甚至覆寫合法使用者的 Cookie。

由於 HTTP 回應表頭,Cookie manipulation 攻擊還會導致其他類型的攻擊,例如:

HTTP Response Splitting:
最常見的一種 Header Manipulation 攻擊為 HTTP Response Splitting。為了成功進行 HTTP Response Splitting 攻擊,應用程式必須允許輸入在表頭中包含 CR (Carriage Return,亦由 %0d 或 \r 指定) 與 LF (Line Feed,亦由 %0a 或 \n 指定) 字元。這些字元不僅讓攻擊者控制應用程式接下來要傳送的回應表頭和回應主題,還允許他們全權建立其他回應。

現今許多先進的應用程式伺服器可防止將惡意字元插入 HTTP 表頭。舉例來說,如果您嘗試使用禁用的字元設定表頭,最新版的 Apache Tomcat 會拋出 IllegalArgumentException。如果應用程式伺服器可防止使用新行的字元來設定表頭,則您的應用程式對於 HTTP Response Splitting 的攻擊,具有一定的防禦能力。但是,僅篩選新行的字元,應用程式可能仍對 Cookie Manipulation 或 Open Redirects 攻擊無招架能力,所以透過使用者輸入設定 HTTP 表頭時,仍需特別注意。

範例:以下程式碼區段會從 HTTP 要求中讀取網路部落格項目的作者名稱 (author),並在 HTTP 回應的 Cookie 表頭中設定該名稱。


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


假設在要求中提交了一個由標準英數字元所組成的字串,如 "Jane Smith",那麼包含這個 Cookie 的 HTTP 回應可能會採用以下形式:


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


不過,因為 cookie 的值是由未經驗證的使用者輸入而得來,所以只有當傳送給 AUTHOR_PARAM 的值不包含任何 CR 和 LF 字元,那麼回應才會保留這種形式。若攻擊者提交惡意字串,例如「Wiley Hacker\r\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n...」,則 HTTP 回應將分割為以下形式的兩種回應:


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

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
...


很明顯的,第二個回應完全被攻擊者所控制,並且能使用任何標頭和想要的正文內容來建構。攻擊者可以建構任何 HTTP 回應,並造成不同的攻擊結果,這些攻擊包括:跨用戶塗改、網頁和瀏覽器快取記憶體下毒、Cross-site scripting 和網頁劫持。

跨用戶塗改:攻擊者將能夠發出單一要求到易受攻擊的伺服器,讓伺服器建立兩個回應,其中第二個回應可能會被錯誤解譯成針對不同要求的回應,該要求可能是由另一個與伺服器共用相同 TCP 連線的使用者所發出的。這種攻擊可以下列方式達成:攻擊者誘導使用者自己傳遞惡意要求,或是在遠端情況下,攻擊者和使用者共用相同的 TCP 連線連接到伺服器 (例如共用的代理伺服器)。最理想的情況是,攻擊者可能利用此功能讓使用者確信他們的應用程式已受攻擊,造成使用者對應用程式的安全性失去信心。最差的狀況是,攻擊者可能會提供特殊處理過的內容。這些內容專門用來模仿應用程式執行方式,但會要求使用者重新導向要求私人資訊,例如帳戶號碼和密碼,接著會將這些資訊回傳給攻擊者。

快取破壞:如果將惡意建構的回應快取到多個使用者使用的網頁快取或甚至單一使用者的瀏覽器快取,那麼影響所及會更大。如果將回應快取到共用網頁快取中 (例如代理伺服器中常見的網頁快取),那麼該快取的所有使用者將會繼續收到惡意內容,直到清除該快取項目為止。同樣的,如果回應貯存在單一使用者的瀏覽器中,那麼該使用者會繼續收到惡意的內容,直到清除快取項目為止,雖然只會影響本機瀏覽器實例的使用者。

Cross-Site Scripting:一旦攻擊者可以控制應用程式傳送的回應,他們就可以提供各種惡意內容給使用者。Cross-Site Scripting 是最常見的攻擊形式,此類攻擊會在回應中包含惡意的 JavaScript 或其他程式碼,且會在使用者的瀏覽器中執行。以 XSS 為基礎的攻擊手段花樣百出且幾乎無窮無盡,但是它們通常會傳輸 Cookie 或其他階段作業資訊之類的私人資料給攻擊者、將受害者重新導向到攻擊者控制的網頁內容,或者利用易受攻擊的網站,在使用者的機器上執行其他惡意操作。對於易受攻擊應用程式的使用者而言,最常見且最危險的攻擊方法就是使用 JavaScript 將階段作業與驗證資訊傳回給之後可以完全掌控受害者帳戶的攻擊者。

網頁劫持:除了利用易受攻擊的應用程式傳送惡意內容給使用者外,還可以利用具有相同本質的弱點,重新導向伺服器產生原本供使用者使用的敏感內容,轉而供攻擊者使用。藉由提交要求產生兩個回應,伺服器預期的回應和攻擊者產生的回應,攻擊者可能造成一個中間節點,例如一個共用的代理伺服器,來誤導伺服器針對使用者產生的回應傳遞給攻擊者。因為攻擊者所提出的要求產生兩個回應,第一個被解譯回應攻擊者的要求,而第二個被忘卻。當使用者透過相同 TCP 連線發出合法要求時,攻擊者的要求已處於等待狀態,並會被解讀成針對受害者要求的回應。接著,攻擊者會將第二個要求傳送到伺服器,且代理伺服器會將伺服器原本針對受害者要求產生的回應當作第二個要求的回應,如此一來,就會危及原本針對受害者的回應表頭或主體中的敏感資訊。

開放式重新導向:允許未經驗證的輸入來控制重新導向中使用的 URL,如此會助長網路釣魚攻擊。
References
[1] A. Klein Divide and Conquer: HTTP Response Splitting, Web Cache Poisoning Attacks, and Related Topics
[2] D. Crab HTTP Response Splitting
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 113
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 HTTP Response Splitting (WASC-25)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 HTTP Response Splitting
desc.dataflow.vb.header_manipulation_cookies
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
雙重 OGNL 評估會讓攻擊者在控制第一個評估的輸出時評估任意 OGNL 運算式。
Explanation
應用程式會在兩次評估 OGNL 運算式的 Struts 標籤中使用強制的 OGNL 運算式 (%{expr})。攻擊者在控制第一次評估的結果後,即有可能控制要在第二次 OGNL 評估中評估的運算式,進而插入任意 OGNL 運算式。

範例 1:已知 redirectAction 結果會用於評估其參數兩次。在此案例中,攻擊者可透過提供 redirect 要求參數來控制 actionName 參數中強制 OGNL 運算式的結果。


...
<action name="index" class="com.acme.MyAction">
<result type="redirectAction">
<param name="actionName">${#parameters['redirect']}</param>
<param name="namespace">/foo</param>
</result>
</action>
...


Struts 2 程式碼會在內部評估傳回經由使用者控制的字串的 %{#parameters['redirect']} 運算式,該運算式會被當作 OGNL 運算式來進行評估,讓攻擊者能夠評估任意 OGNL 運算式。
References
[1] Struts 2 - Security Bulletin S2-029 Apache Struts
[2] Struts 2 - Security Bulletin S2-036 Apache Struts
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94, CWE ID 95
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.4 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 094
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 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 - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.configuration.java.ognl_expression_injection_double_evaluation
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
Terraform 組態允許用戶端使用 HTTP 或 HTTPS 連線到邊緣快取服務。
Explanation
依預設,邊緣快取服務接受未加密和不安全的連線。這類的連線會將資料暴露於未經授權存取、潛在竊取和竄改的風險。

範例 1:以下範例顯示一個 Terraform 組態,其透過將 require_tls 設為 false 來定義邊緣快取服務,藉此不要求用戶端使用 TLS 進行通訊。

resource "google_network_services_edge_cache_service" "srv_demo" {
...
require_tls = false
...
}
References
[1] HashiCorp google_network_services_edge_cache_service
[2] Google Cloud Redirect all requests to HTTPS
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000068, CCI-001453, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422, CCI-002890, CCI-003123
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SC
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-17 Remote Access (P1), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-17 Remote Access, MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.1 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.1 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[15] 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
[16] 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
[17] 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
[18] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[19] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[20] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[21] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[22] 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-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
desc.structural.hcl.gcp_terraform_misconfiguration_insecure_edge_cache_service_transport
Abstract
如果不驗證 Host 表頭,攻擊者便可傳送虛假的 Host 值,此值可用於跨網站偽造要求、快取破壞攻擊,以及電子郵件中的破壞連結。
Explanation
Django 應用程式設定指定 "*" 做為 ALLOWED_HOSTS 設定中的項目。django.http.HttpRequest.get_host() 使用此設定來驗證 Host 表頭。值 "*" 將允許在 Host 表頭中使用任何主機。攻擊者可能將此用於發起快取破壞攻擊,或用於電子郵件中的破壞連結。

範例 1:應用程式提供重設密碼功能,讓使用者能夠提交某種唯一值來識別自己 (例如:電子郵件地址),然後程式會傳送密碼重設電子郵件,內含用於設定新密碼的頁面連結。傳送給使用者的連結可以使用 Host 值進行建構,以參照執行重設密碼功能的網站,從而避免硬式編碼的 URL。例如:


...
def reset_password(request):
url = "http://%s/new_password/?token=%s" % (request.get_host(), generate_token())
send_email(reset_link=url)
redirect("home")
...


攻擊者可能會透過提交受害者的電子郵件以及指向所控制伺服器的虛假 Host 表頭值,來重設受害者的密碼。受害者將收到一封電子郵件,內含重設密碼系統的連結,如果受害者決定造訪該連結,其將會造訪由攻擊者控制的網站,網站上將執行虛假表單以收集受害者的憑證。
References
[1] Django Foundation Host header validation
[2] Django Foundation ALLOWED_HOSTS
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective C.3.1 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[5] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.structural.python.django_bad_practices_overly_broad_host_header_verification
Abstract
Direct Open SQL 寫入操作是不良的作法,應予以避免。
Explanation
一般而言,Direct Open SQL 寫入操作 (插入/更新/修改/刪除) 是不良的作法,應予以避免。這些更新會破壞系統的完整性與安全性,因此應禁止。



Direct Open SQL 寫入操作還容易發生錯誤,可能導致非預期的系統行為。在 SAP 中,需要小心的一些問題包括:

- SAP 建議使用「更新統合」技術確保 SAP LUW (工作的邏輯單元) 中可能跨多個資料庫 LUW 的資料完整性。直接修改表格項目而不更新統合可能使 SAP 交易處於不一致的狀態。

- Direct Open SQL 寫入操作只設定資料庫級別的鎖定,而略過 SAP 應用程式鎖定。這可能導致鎖死和資料損壞。

- Direct Open SQL 寫入操作略過應用程式內的 SAP 授權檢查。

- 在使用標準機制寫入表格項目、編輯檢查、稽核路徑時,相依的更新 (例如變更文件) 全部會正確執行。而使用 Direct Open SQL 寫入操作時不是這樣。

References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 662
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [22] CWE ID 362
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [21] CWE ID 362
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002235
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II
desc.structural.abap.sql_bad_practices_direct_update
Abstract
接受使用者提供的資料做為 apex:iframe 來源 URL 可能會導致在 Visualforce 頁面內載入惡意內容。
Explanation
框架欺騙弱點會在以下情況中出現:

1. 資料從一個不可信賴的來源進入 Web 應用程式。

2. 此資料將用作 iframe URL,且無需進行驗證。

這樣一來,攻擊者可能會控制將轉譯成內嵌框架的內容。透過修改框架 URL 以指向惡意網站,可能會嘗試執行釣魚攻擊來竊取使用者資訊 (包括認證或其他敏感資料)。假設基礎網域可以信任 - Salesforce.com,受害者將信任該頁面並提供所有要求的資訊。

範例 1:在以下程式碼範例中,iframesrc URL 參數將直接用作 apex:iframe 目標 URL。

<apex:page>
<apex:iframe src="{!$CurrentPage.parameters.iframesrc}"></apex:iframe>
</apex:page>


這樣一來,如果攻擊者為受害者提供設為惡意網站的 iframesrc 參數,則框架將使用惡意網站的內容進行轉譯。

<iframe src="http://evildomain.com/">
References
[1] Ryan C. Barnett Content Spoofing - TechTarget
[2] Salesforce Developers Technical Library Secure Coding Guidelines
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 601
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.5 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
[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
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] 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
[25] 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
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 601
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3600 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 URL Redirector Abuse (WASC-38)
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Content Spoofing
desc.dataflow.apex.frame_spoofing
Abstract
使用原生 SQL 會造成可攜性問題。
Explanation
SAP 系統專為實現平台獨立而設計。Open SQL 是 SAP 的可攜式 SQL 變體語言,可使應用程式獨立於特定資料庫廠商的 JDBC 驅動程式。Open SQL 的使用可以讓基礎資料庫化繁為簡,並為所有資料庫作業提供一種通用的應用程式介面。但是,原生 SQL 特定用於基礎資料庫,因此對其他平台使用原生 SQL 可能導致應用程式邏輯執行錯誤,並可能導致阻斷服務。
範例 1:以下程式碼使用原生 SQL:


...
import java.sql.PreparedStatement;
import com.sap.sql.NativeSQLAccess;

String mssOnlyStmt = "...";
// variant 1
PreparedStatement ps =
NativeSQLAccess.prepareNativeStatement(
conn, mssOnlyStmt);
. . .
// variant 2
Statement stmt =
NativeSQLAccess.createNativeStatement(conn);
int result = stmt.execute(mssOnlyStmt);
. . .
// variant 3
CallableStatement cs =
NativeSQLAccess.prepareNativeCall(
conn, mssOnlyStmt);
. . .
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
desc.structural.java.portability_flaw_native_sql