VIEW SLICE: CWE-635: Weaknesses Used by NVD
(Draft 9)
View ID
| Status: Draft 635 (View) | | Objective | CWE nodes in this view (slice) are used by NIST to categorize vulnerabilities within NVD. | | View Data | | CWEs in this view | | Total CWEs |
|---|
| Total | 19 | out of | 695 | | Views | 0 | out of | 14 | | Categories | 6 | out of | 64 | | Weaknesses | 12 | out of | 605 | | Compound_Elements | 1 | out of | 12 |
|
View Components View Components A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
I |
J |
K |
L |
M |
N |
O |
P |
Q |
R |
S |
T |
U |
V |
W |
X |
Y |
Z
Weakness ID
| Status: Draft 94 (Weakness Class) | | Description | Summary The product does not sufficiently filter code (control-plane) syntax from user-controlled input (data plane) when that input is used within code that the product generates. | | Potential Mitigations | Implementation: Utilize an appropriate mix of whitelist and blacklist parsing to filter non-relevant code syntax from all input that should not contain code. Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in a whitelist fashion to
prevent execution of any non-sanctioned code. Assign permissions to the software system that prevent the user from
accessing/opening privileged files. | | Research Gaps | Many of these weaknesses are under-studied, and terminology is not sufficiently precise. | | Relationships | | | Source Taxonomies | PLOVER - (CODE) Code Evaluation and Injection | | Applicable Platforms | All | | Related Attack Patterns | | CAPEC-ID | Attack Pattern Name |
|---|
| 35 | Leverage Executable Code in Nonexecutable Files | | 77 | Manipulating User-Controlled Variables |
|
Category ID
| Status: Draft 16 (Category) | | Description | Summary Weaknesses in this category are typically introduced during the configuration
of the software. | | Relationships | | Nature | Type | ID | Name |
|---|
| ChildOf | Category | 1 | Location | | ChildOf | View | 635 | |
|
Category ID
| Status: Draft 255 (Category) | | Description | Summary Weaknesses in this category are related to the management of credentials. | | Relationships | | | Applicable Platforms | All |
Compound Element ID
| Status: Incomplete 352 (Compound Element Variant: Composite) | | Description | Summary The web product does not, or can not, sufficiently verify whether a
well-formed, valid, consistent request was intentionally provided by the user who
submitted the request. Note: CSRF is multi-channel: 1. Attacker-to-victim (injection;
external or internal channel) 2. Victim-to-server (activation; internal channel) | | Alternate Terms | Session Riding Cross Site Reference Forgery XSRF | | Observed Examples | | | Context Notes | Could be resultant from XSS, although XSS is not necessarily required. | | References | | | Relationships | | | Source Taxonomies | PLOVER - Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) | | Applicable Platforms | All | | Time of Introduction | Architecture and Design | | Related Attack Patterns | | CAPEC-ID | Attack Pattern Name |
|---|
| 62 | Cross Site Request Forgery (aka Session Riding) |
|
Category ID
| Status: Draft 310 (Category) | | Description | Summary Weaknesses in this category are related to the use of cryptography. | | Functional Area | Cryptography | | Context Notes | This category is incomplete and needs refinement, as there is good
documentation of cryptographic flaws and related attacks. Note: some of these can be resultant. | | Relationships | | | Source Taxonomies | PLOVER - Cryptographic Issues | | Applicable Platforms | All |
Weakness ID
| Status: Draft 119 (Weakness Class) | | Description | Summary
The software may potentially allow operations, such as reading or writing, to be performed at
addresses not intended by the developer.
Extended Description When software permits read or write operations on memory located outside
of an allocated range, an attacker may be able to access/modify sensitive information, cause
the system to crash, alter the intended control flow, or execute arbitrary code. | | Affected Resource | Memory | | Relationships | | | Related Attack Patterns | | CAPEC-ID | Attack Pattern Name |
|---|
| 100 | Overflow Buffers | | 10 | Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables | | 14 | Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow | | 42 | MIME Conversion | | 24 | Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow | | 8 | Buffer Overflow in an API Call | | 44 | Overflow Binary Resource File | | 9 | Buffer Overflow in Local Command-Line Utilities | | 45 | Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links | | 46 | Overflow Variables and Tags | | 47 | Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion |
|
Weakness ID
| Status: Draft 59 (Weakness Base) | | Description | Summary Link following weaknesses involve insufficient protection against links or
shortcuts that can resolve to a file other than the one that was intended. | | Alternate Terms | Some people use the phrase "insecure temporary file" when referring to a
link following weakness, but other weaknesses can produce insecure temporary files
without any symlink involvement at all. | | Functional Area | File processing, temporary files | | Likelihood of Exploit | Low to Medium | | Weakness Ordinality | Resultant (Weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses) | | Causal Nature | Explicit (This is an explicit weakness resulting from behavior of the developer) | | Affected Resource | File/Directory | | Potential Mitigations | Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to
files. Denying access to a file can prevent an attacker from replacing that file
with a link to a sensitive file. Ensure good compartmentalization in the system to
provide protected areas that can be trusted. | | Context Notes | Link following vulnerabilities are Multi-factor Vulnerabilities (MFV). They
are the combination of multiple elements: file or directory permissions, filename
predictability, race conditions, and in some cases, a design limitation in which there
is no mechanism for performing atomic file creation operations. Some potentials factors are race conditions, permissions, predictability. This is not OS specific. Windows soft links can be exploited remotely since a ".LNK" file can be
uploaded like a normal file. | | Research Gaps | UNIX hard links, and Windows hard/soft links are under-studied and
under-reported. | | Relationships | | | Source Taxonomies | PLOVER - Link Following | | Applicable Platforms | All | | Related Attack Patterns | | CAPEC-ID | Attack Pattern Name |
|---|
| 35 | Leverage Executable Code in Nonexecutable Files | | 17 | Accessing, Modifying or Executing Executable Files | | 76 | Manipulating Input to File System Calls |
|
Weakness ID
| Status: Incomplete 78 (Weakness Base) | | Description | Summary The software fails to adequately filter OS command syntax from user-controlled input
and then allows potentially injected commands to execute within its context. A software system
that accepts and executes input in the form of operating system commands (e.g. system(), exec(),
open()) could allow an attacker with lesser privileges than the target software to execute
commands with the elevated privileges of the executing process. The problem is exacerbated if the
compromised process fails to follow the principle of least privilege. | | Alternate Terms | Shell injection, shell metacharacters | | Functional Area | Program invocation | | Affected Resource | System Process | | Potential Mitigations | Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes
to recreate the desired functionality Implementation: Utilize black-list parsing to filter non-relevant OS command syntax from all input. Implementation: Ensure that all external commands called from the program
are statically created, or -- if they must take input from a user -- that the input
and final line generated are vigorously white-list checked. Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in a white-list fashion to
prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands. Assign permissions to the software system that prevents the user from
accessing/opening privileged files. | | Observed Examples | | | Context Notes | Fault: unquoted special characters, input restriction error | | References | G. Hoglund and G. McGraw.
"Exploiting Software: How to Break Code". Addison-Wesley. February 2004. | | Relationships | | | Source Taxonomies | PLOVER - OS Command Injection | | Applicable Platforms | All | | Related Attack Patterns | | CAPEC-ID | Attack Pattern Name |
|---|
| 88 | OS Command Injection | | 15 | Command Delimiters | | 6 | Argument Injection | | 43 | Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers |
| | White Box Definition | A weakness where the code path has: 1. start statement that accepts input 2. end statement that executes an operating system command where a. the input is used as a part of the operating system command b. the privilege of the operating system command is higher than privilege of the input and c. the operating system command is undesirable Where “undesirable” is defined through the following scenarios: 1. not validated 2. incorrectly validated
|
Weakness ID
| Status: Incomplete 89 (Weakness Base) | | Description | Summary The application fails to adequately filter SQL syntax from user-controllable input. This can lead to such input being interpreted as SQL rather than ordinary user data and be executed as part of a dynamically generated SQL query. This is a specific form of an injection problem, one that explicitly affects SQL databases, in which SQL commands are injected into data-plane input in order to effect the execution of dynamically generated SQL statements. | | Likelihood of Exploit | Very High | | Common Consequences | Confidentiality: Since SQL databases generally hold sensitive data, loss of
confidentiality is a frequent problem with SQL injection vulnerabilities. Authentication: If poor SQL commands are used to check user names and
passwords, it may be possible to connect to a system as another user with no previous
knowledge of the password. Authorization: If authorization information is held in a SQL database, it may
be possible to change this information through the successful exploitation of a SQL injection
vulnerability. Integrity: Just as it may be possible to read sensitive information, it is
also possible to make changes or even delete this information with a SQL injection
attack. | | Potential Mitigations | Requirements specification: A non-SQL style database which is not subject to this flaw
may be chosen. Design: Follow the principle of least privilege when creating user accounts to a SQL
database. Users should only have the minimum privileges necessary to use their account. If the
requirements of the system indicate that a user can read and modify their own data, then limit
their privileges so they cannot read/write others' data. Design: Duplicate any filtering done on the client-side on the server side. Implementation: Implement SQL strings using prepared statements that bind variables.
Prepared statements that do not bind variables can be vulnerable to attack. Implementation: Use vigorous white-list style checking on any user input that may be
used in a SQL command. Rather than escape meta-characters, it is safest to disallow them
entirely. Reason: Later use of data that have been entered in the database may neglect to
escape meta-characters before use. Narrowly define the set of safe characters based on the
expected value of the parameter in the request. | Demonstrative Examples | The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for
items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where
owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user. C# Example: ... string userName = ctx.getAuthenticatedUserName(); string query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '" + userName + "' AND itemname = '" + ItemName.Text + "'"; sda = new SqlDataAdapter(query, conn); DataTable dt = new DataTable(); sda.Fill(dt); ... The query that this code intends to execute follows: SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner
= <userName> AND itemname = <itemName>; However, because the
query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user
input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote
character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string "name' OR 'a'='a" for
itemName, then the query becomes the following: SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = 'wiley'
AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a'; The addition of the OR 'a'='a' condition causes the
where clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the
much simpler query: SELECT * FROM items; This simplification of the query allows the
attacker to bypass the requirement that the query only return items owned by the
authenticated user; the query now returns all entries stored in the items table,
regardless of their specified owner.
This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query
constructed and executed in the above example. If an attacker with the user name hacker
enters the string "hacker'); DELETE FROM items; --" for itemName, then the query becomes
the following two queries: SQL Example: SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = 'wiley' AND itemname = 'name'; DELETE FROM items; --' Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL
statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string
results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the
batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch
execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against
the database. Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database
servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed
[19]. In this case the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left
over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in
this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the
one shown in Example 1. If an attacker enters the string "name'); DELETE FROM items;
SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = 'wiley' AND itemname = 'name'; DELETE FROM items; SELECT
* FROM items WHERE 'a'='a'; One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks
is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from a
whitelist of safe values or identify and escape a blacklist of potentially malicious
values. Whitelisting can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation
rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more
guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, blacklisting is riddled
with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example,
attackers can: - Target fields that are not quoted - Find ways to bypass the need for
certain escaped meta-characters - Use stored procedures to hide the injected
meta-characters Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will
not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks. Another solution commonly
proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although
stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they fail to protect
against many others. For example, the following PL/SQL procedure is vulnerable to the same
SQL injection attack shown in the first example. procedure get_item ( itm_cv IN OUT
ItmCurTyp, usr in varchar2, itm in varchar2) is open itm_cv for ' SELECT * FROM items
WHERE ' || 'owner = '|| usr || ' AND itemname = ' || itm || '; end get_item; Stored
procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of
statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the
limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures.
Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your
application secure against SQL injection attacks.
MS SQL has a built in function that enables shell command execution. An
SQL injection in such a context could be disastrous. For example, a query of the
form: SELECT ITEM,PRICE FROM PRODUCT WHERE ITEM_CATEGORY='$user_input' ORDER BY PRICE Where $user_input is taken from the user and
unfiltered. If the user provides the string: ' exec master..xp_cmdshell 'vol' -- The query will take the following form: " SELECT ITEM,PRICE FROM PRODUCT WHERE ITEM_CATEGORY='' exec master..xp_cmdshell 'vol' --' ORDER BY PRICE Now, this query can be broken down into: [1] a first SQL query: SELECT ITEM,PRICE
FROM PRODUCT WHERE ITEM_CATEGORY='' [2] a second SQL query, which executes a shell
command: exec master..xp_cmdshell 'vol' [3] an MS SQL comment: --' ORDER BY PRICE As can
be seen, the malicious input changes the semantics of the query into a query, a shell
command execution and a comment. | | Observed Examples | | | Context Notes | SQL injection has become a common issue with database-driven web sites. The flaw is
easily detected, and easily exploited, and as such, any site or software package with even a
minimal user base is likely to be subject to an attempted attack of this kind. Essentially, the
attack is accomplished by placing a meta character into data input to then place SQL commands in
the control plane, which did not exist there before. This flaw depends on the fact that SQL makes
no real distinction between the control and data planes. If successful, SQL Injection attacks can give an attacker access to backend database
contents, the ability to remotely execute system commands, or in some circumstances the means to
take control of the Windows server hosting the database. Dynamically generating queries that include user input can lead to SQL injection
attacks. An attacker can insert SQL commands or modifiers in the user input that can cause the
query to behave in an unsafe manner. Constructing a dynamic SQL statement with user input may allow an attacker to modify
the statement's meaning or to execute arbitrary SQL commands. Factors: resultant to special character mismanagement, MAID, or blacklist/whitelist
problems. Can be primary to authentication errors. | | References | M. Howard and D. LeBlanc.
"Writing Secure Code". 2nd Edition. Microsoft. 2003. | | Relationships | | | Source Taxonomies | PLOVER - SQL injection 7 Pernicious Kingdoms - SQL Injection CLASP - SQL injection | | Applicable Platforms | All | | Related Attack Patterns | | CAPEC-ID | Attack Pattern Name |
|---|
| 66 | SQL Injection | | 7 | Blind SQL Injection |
| | White Box Definition | A weakness where the code path has: 1. start statement that accepts input 2. end statement that performs an SQL command where a. the input is part of the SQL command and b. the SQL command is undesirable Where “undesirable” is defined through the following scenarios: 1. not validated 2. incorrectly validated
|
Weakness ID
| Status: Draft 79 (Weakness Base) | | Description | Summary The software does not sufficiently sanitize user-controllable input for content before it is prepared in output that is used as a web page. Extended Description Unsanitized special elements that have control implications in web pages, such as HTML tags or mouse events, are interpreted as control characters that execute in violation of the client's trust in the application or system. This weakness usually enables cross-site scripting attacks in web applications. | | Alternate Terms | "CSS" was once used as the acronym for this problem, but this can cause confusion
with the "Cascading Style Sheets," so this acronym has declined significantly. Its use is
discouraged by CWE. | | Likelihood of Exploit | High to Very High | | Weakness Ordinality | Resultant (Weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses) | | Causal Nature | Explicit (This is an explicit weakness resulting from behavior of the developer) | | Common Consequences | Confidentiality: The most common attack performed with cross-site scripting
involves the disclosure of information stored in user cookies. Access control: In some circumstances it may be possible to run arbitrary code
on a victim's computer when cross-site scripting is combined with other flaws. If successful, cross-site scripting vulnerabilities can be exploited to
manipulate or steal cookies, create requests that can be mistaken for those of a valid user,
compromise confidential information, or execute malicious code on the end user systems for a
variety of nefarious purposes. | | Potential Mitigations | Carefully check each input parameter against a rigorous positive specification (white
list) defining the specific characters and format allowed. All input should be sanitized, not
just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including
hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to
continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed
by the site. We often encounter data from the request that is reflected by the application
server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is
not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of
the HTTP request is recommended. This involves "HTML Entity Encoding" all non-alphanumeric characters from data that
was received from the user and is now being written to the request. With Struts, you should write all data from form beans with the bean's filter
attribute set to true. To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie
to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as Internet Explorer),
this attribute prevents the user's session cookie from being accessed by client-side scripts,
including scripts inserted due to a XSS attack. | Demonstrative Examples | The following JSP code segment reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP
request and displays it to the user. JSP Example: <% String eid = request.getParameter("eid"); %> ... Employee ID: <%= eid %> The following ASP.NET code segment reads an employee ID number from an
HTTP request and displays it to the user. ASP.NET Example: protected System.Web.UI.WebControls.TextBox Login; protected System.Web.UI.WebControls.Label EmployeeID; ... EmployeeID.Text = Login.Text; The code in this example operates correctly if eid contains only standard
alphanumeric text. If eid has a value that includes meta-characters or source code, then
the code will be executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response. Initially
this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a
URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an
attacker will create the malicious URL, then use e-mail or social engineering tricks to
lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they
unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to
their own computers. This mechanism of exploiting vulnerable web applications is known as
Reflected XSS.
The following JSP code segment queries a database for an employee with a
given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name. JSP Example: <%... Statement stmt = conn.createStatement(); ResultSet rs = stmt.executeQuery("select * from emp where id="+eid); if (rs != null) { rs.next(); String name = rs.getString("name"); %> Employee Name: <%= name %> The following ASP.NET code segment queries a database for an employee
with a given employee ID and prints the name corresponding with the ID. ASP.NET Example: protected System.Web.UI.WebControls.Label EmployeeName; ... string query = "select * from emp where id=" + eid; sda = new SqlDataAdapter(query, conn); sda.Fill(dt); string name = dt.Rows[0]["Name"]; ... EmployeeName.Text = name; This code functions correctly when the values of name are well-behaved, but it does
nothing to prevent exploits if they are not. Again, this code can appear less dangerous
because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed
by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then
the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on
all data stored in the database, an attacker can execute malicious commands in the user's
web browser. This type of exploit, known as Stored XSS, is particularly insidious because
the indirection caused by the data store makes it more difficult to identify the threat
and increases the possibility that the attack will affect multiple users. XSS got its
start in this form with web sites that offered a "guestbook" to visitors. Attackers would
include JavaScript in their guestbook entries, and all subsequent visitors to the
guestbook page would execute the malicious code. As the examples demonstrate, XSS
vulnerabilities are caused by code that includes unvalidated data in an HTTP response.
There are three vectors by which an XSS attack can reach a victim: * As in the previous
example, data is read directly from the HTTP request and reflected back in the HTTP
response. Reflected XSS exploits occur when an attacker causes a user to supply dangerous
content to a vulnerable web application, which is then reflected back to the user and
executed by the web browser. The most common mechanism for delivering malicious content is
to include it as a parameter in a URL that is posted publicly or e-mailed directly to
victims. URLs constructed in this manner constitute the core of many phishing schemes,
whereby an attacker convinces victims to visit a URL that refers to a vulnerable site.
After the site reflects the attacker's content back to the user, the content is executed
and proceeds to transfer private information, such as cookies that may include session
information, from the user's machine to the attacker or perform other nefarious
activities. * As in this example, the application stores dangerous data in a database or
other trusted data store. The dangerous data is subsequently read back into the
application and included in dynamic content. Stored XSS exploits occur when an attacker
injects dangerous content into a data store that is later read and included in dynamic
content. From an attacker's perspective, the optimal place to inject malicious content is
in an area that is displayed to either many users or particularly interesting users.
Interesting users typically have elevated privileges in the application or interact with
sensitive data that is valuable to the attacker. If one of these users executes malicious
content, the attacker may be able to perform privileged operations on behalf of the user
or gain access to sensitive data belonging to the user. * A source outside the application
stores dangerous data in a database or other data store, and the dangerous data is
subsequently read back into the application as trusted data and included in dynamic
content. | | Observed Examples | | | Context Notes | Cross-site scripting weakness occurs when dynamically generated web
pages display input, such as login information, that is not properly validated, allowing an
attacker to embed malicious scripts into the generated page and then execute the script
on the machine of any user that views the site. If successful, Cross-site scripting
vulnerabilities can be exploited to manipulate or steal cookies, create requests that
can be mistaken for those of a valid user, compromise confidential information, or
execute malicious code on the end user systems for a variety of nefarious purposes. Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when an attacker uses a web
application to send malicious code, generally JavaScript, to a different end user. When
a web application uses input from a user in the output it generates without filtering
it, an attacker can insert an attack in that input and the web application sends the
attack to other users. The end user trusts the web application, and the attacks exploit
that trust to do things that would not normally be allowed. Attackers frequently use a
variety of methods to encode the malicious portion of the tag, such as using Unicode, so
the request looks less suspicious to the user. XSS attacks can generally be categorized
into two categories: stored and reflected. Stored attacks are those where the injected
code is permanently stored on the target servers in a database, message forum, visitor
log, and so forth. Reflected attacks are those where the injected code takes another
route to the victim, such as in an email message, or on some other server. When a user
is tricked into clicking a link or submitting a form, the injected code travels to the
vulnerable web server, which reflects the attack back to the user's browser. The browser
then executes the code because it came from a 'trusted' server. For a reflected XSS
attack to work, the victim must submit the attack to the server. This is still a very
dangerous attack given the number of possible ways to trick a victim into submitting
such a malicious request, including clicking a link on a malicious Web site, in an
email, or in an inner-office posting. XSS flaws are very likely in web applications, as
they require a great deal of developer discipline to avoid them in most applications. It
is relatively easy for an attacker to find XSS vulnerabilities. Some of these
vulnerabilities can be found using scanners, and some exist in older web application
servers. The consequence of an XSS attack is the same regardless of whether it is stored
or reflected. The difference is in how the payload arrives at the server. XSS can cause
a variety of problems for the end user that range in severity from an annoyance to
complete account compromise. The most severe XSS attacks involve disclosure of the
user's session cookie, which allows an attacker to hijack the user's session and take
over their account. Other damaging attacks include the disclosure of end user files,
installation of Trojan horse programs, redirecting the user to some other page or site,
and modifying presentation of content. Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur
when: 1. Data enters a Web application through an untrusted source, most frequently a
web request. 2. The data is included in dynamic content that is sent to a web user
without being validated for malicious code. The malicious content sent to the web
browser often takes the form of a segment of JavaScript, but may also include HTML,
Flash or any other type of code that the browser may execute. The variety of attacks
based on XSS is almost limitless, but they commonly include transmitting private data
like cookies or other session information to the attacker, redirecting the victim to web
content controlled by the attacker, or performing other malicious operations on the
user's machine under the guise of the vulnerable site. Cross-site scripting attacks can occur wherever an untrusted user has the
ability to publish content to a trusted web site. Typically, a malicious user will craft
a client-side script, which -- when parsed by a web browser -- performs some activity
(such as sending all site cookies to a given E-mail address). If the input is unchecked,
this script will be loaded and run by each user visiting the web site. Since the site
requesting to run the script has access to the cookies in question, the malicious script
does also. There are several other possible attacks, such as running "Active X" controls
(under Microsoft Internet Explorer) from sites that a user perceives as trustworthy;
cookie theft is however by far the most common. All of these attacks are easily
prevented by ensuring that no script tags -- or for good measure, HTML tags at all --
are allowed in data to be posted publicly. Cross-site scripting attacks may occur anywhere that possibly malicious users
are allowed to post unregulated material to a trusted web site for the consumption of
other valid users. The most common example can be found in bulletin-board web sites
which provide web based mailing list-style functionality. | | References | Jeremiah Grossman,
Robert "RSnake" Hansen,
Petko "pdp" D. Petkov,
Anton Rager and Seth Fogie.
"XSS Attacks". Syngress. 2007. M. Howard and D. LeBlanc.
"Writing Secure Code". 2nd Edition. Microsoft. 2003. | | Relationships | | | Source Taxonomies | PLOVER - Cross-site scripting (XSS) 7 Pernicious Kingdoms - Cross-site Scripting CLASP - Cross-site scripting | | Applicable Platforms | All | | Related Attack Patterns | | CAPEC-ID | Attack Pattern Name |
|---|
| 91 | XSS in IMG Tags | | 19 | Embedding Scripts within Scripts | | 85 | Client Network Footprinting (using AJAX/XSS) | | 32 | Embedding Scripts in HTTP Query Strings | | 86 | Embedding Script (XSS ) in HTTP Headers |
|
Weakness ID
| Status: Incomplete 200 (Weakness Class) | | Description | Summary An information leak is the intentional or unintentional disclosure of
information that either (1) is regarded as sensitive within the product's own
functionality, such as a private message, or (2) provides information about the product
or its environment that could be useful in an attack but is normally not available to
the attacker, such as the installation path of a product that is remotely accessible.
Many information leaks are resultant (e.g. path disclosure in PHP script error), but
they can also be primary (e.g. timing discrepancies in crypto). There are many different
types of problems that involve information leaks. Their severity can range widely
depending on the type of information that is leaked. | | Potential Mitigations | Compartmentalize your system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can
be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust
boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the
safe area. | | Relationships | |
|