CWE-22 对路径名的限制不恰当(路径遍历)

admin 2021年12月16日16:31:21CWE(弱点枚举)评论794 views19082字阅读63分36秒阅读模式

CWE-22 对路径名的限制不恰当(路径遍历)

Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

结构: Simple

Abstraction: Base

状态: Stable

被利用可能性: High

基本描述

The software uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the software does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.

扩展描述

Many file operations are intended to take place within a restricted directory. By using special elements such as ".." and "/" separators, attackers can escape outside of the restricted location to access files or directories that are elsewhere on the system. One of the most common special elements is the "../" sequence, which in most modern operating systems is interpreted as the parent directory of the current location. This is referred to as relative path traversal. Path traversal also covers the use of absolute pathnames such as "/usr/local/bin", which may also be useful in accessing unexpected files. This is referred to as absolute path traversal.

In many programming languages, the injection of a null byte (the 0 or NUL) may allow an attacker to truncate a generated filename to widen the scope of attack. For example, the software may add ".txt" to any pathname, thus limiting the attacker to text files, but a null injection may effectively remove this restriction.

相关缺陷

  • cwe_Nature: ChildOf cwe_CWE_ID: 706 cwe_View_ID: 1000 cwe_Ordinal: Primary

  • cwe_Nature: ChildOf cwe_CWE_ID: 706 cwe_View_ID: 1003 cwe_Ordinal: Primary

  • cwe_Nature: ChildOf cwe_CWE_ID: 668 cwe_View_ID: 1000

适用平台

Language: {'cwe_Class': 'Language-Independent', 'cwe_Prevalence': 'Undetermined'}

常见的影响

范围 影响 注释
['Integrity', 'Confidentiality', 'Availability'] Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands The attacker may be able to create or overwrite critical files that are used to execute code, such as programs or libraries.
Integrity Modify Files or Directories The attacker may be able to overwrite or create critical files, such as programs, libraries, or important data. If the targeted file is used for a security mechanism, then the attacker may be able to bypass that mechanism. For example, appending a new account at the end of a password file may allow an attacker to bypass authentication.
Confidentiality Read Files or Directories The attacker may be able read the contents of unexpected files and expose sensitive data. If the targeted file is used for a security mechanism, then the attacker may be able to bypass that mechanism. For example, by reading a password file, the attacker could conduct brute force password guessing attacks in order to break into an account on the system.
Availability DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart The attacker may be able to overwrite, delete, or corrupt unexpected critical files such as programs, libraries, or important data. This may prevent the software from working at all and in the case of a protection mechanisms such as authentication, it has the potential to lockout every user of the software.

检测方法

Automated Static Analysis

Automated techniques can find areas where path traversal weaknesses exist. However, tuning or customization may be required to remove or de-prioritize path-traversal problems that are only exploitable by the software's administrator - or other privileged users - and thus potentially valid behavior or, at worst, a bug instead of a vulnerability.

Manual Static Analysis

Manual white box techniques may be able to provide sufficient code coverage and reduction of false positives if all file access operations can be assessed within limited time constraints.

Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis

Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies

Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Web Application Scanner
  • Web Services Scanner
  • Database Scanners

Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Fuzz Tester
  • Framework-based Fuzzer

Manual Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)
Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source

Automated Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Source code Weakness Analyzer
  • Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer

Architecture or Design Review

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction
Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)

可能的缓解方案

MIT-5.1 Implementation

策略: Input Validation

Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a whitelist of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs (i.e., do not rely on a blacklist). A blacklist is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, blacklists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
When validating filenames, use stringent whitelists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a whitelist of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434.
Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a blacklist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would be removed from the original string, but the remaining characters would still form the "../" string.

MIT-15 Architecture and Design

策略:

For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.

MIT-20.1 Implementation

策略: Input Validation

Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass whitelist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes:

MIT-4 Architecture and Design

策略: Libraries or Frameworks

Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

MIT-29 Operation

策略: Firewall

Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth.

MIT-17 ['Architecture and Design', 'Operation']

策略: Environment Hardening

Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.

MIT-21.1 Architecture and Design

策略: Enforcement by Conversion

When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.

MIT-22 ['Architecture and Design', 'Operation']

策略: Sandbox or Jail

Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

MIT-34 ['Architecture and Design', 'Operation']

策略: Attack Surface Reduction

Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately.
This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.

MIT-39 Implementation

策略:

Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience, and nobody else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic and not being cryptic enough. They should not necessarily reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Such detailed information can be used to refine the original attack to increase the chances of success.
If errors must be tracked in some detail, capture them in log messages - but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Avoid recording highly sensitive information such as passwords in any form. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a username is valid or not.
In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.

MIT-16 ['Operation', 'Implementation']

策略: Environment Hardening

When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

示例代码

The following code could be for a social networking application in which each user's profile information is stored in a separate file. All files are stored in a single directory.

bad Perl

my $dataPath = "/users/cwe/profiles";
my $username = param("user");
my $profilePath = $dataPath . "/" . $username;

open(my $fh, "print "

    n";
    while () {

    print "

  • $_
  • n";

    }
    print "

n";

While the programmer intends to access files such as "/users/cwe/profiles/alice" or "/users/cwe/profiles/bob", there is no verification of the incoming user parameter. An attacker could provide a string such as:

attack

../../../etc/passwd

The program would generate a profile pathname like this:

result

/users/cwe/profiles/../../../etc/passwd

When the file is opened, the operating system resolves the "../" during path canonicalization and actually accesses this file:

result

/etc/passwd

As a result, the attacker could read the entire text of the password file.

Notice how this code also contains an error message information leak (CWE-209) if the user parameter does not produce a file that exists: the full pathname is provided. Because of the lack of output encoding of the file that is retrieved, there might also be a cross-site scripting problem (CWE-79) if profile contains any HTML, but other code would need to be examined.

In the example below, the path to a dictionary file is read from a system property and used to initialize a File object.

bad Java

String filename = System.getProperty("com.domain.application.dictionaryFile");
File dictionaryFile = new File(filename);

However, the path is not validated or modified to prevent it from containing relative or absolute path sequences before creating the File object. This allows anyone who can control the system property to determine what file is used. Ideally, the path should be resolved relative to some kind of application or user home directory.

The following code takes untrusted input and uses a regular expression to filter "../" from the input. It then appends this result to the /home/user/ directory and attempts to read the file in the final resulting path.

bad Perl

my $Username = GetUntrustedInput();
$Username =~ s/..///;
my $filename = "/home/user/" . $Username;
ReadAndSendFile($filename);

Since the regular expression does not have the /g global match modifier, it only removes the first instance of "../" it comes across. So an input value such as:

attack

../../../etc/passwd

will have the first "../" stripped, resulting in:

result

../../etc/passwd

This value is then concatenated with the /home/user/ directory:

result

/home/user/../../etc/passwd

which causes the /etc/passwd file to be retrieved once the operating system has resolved the ../ sequences in the pathname. This leads to relative path traversal (CWE-23).

The following code attempts to validate a given input path by checking it against a whitelist and once validated delete the given file. In this specific case, the path is considered valid if it starts with the string "/safe_dir/".

bad Java

String path = getInputPath();
if (path.startsWith("/safe_dir/"))
{

File f = new File(path);
f.delete()

}

An attacker could provide an input such as this:

attack

/safe_dir/../important.dat

The software assumes that the path is valid because it starts with the "/safe_path/" sequence, but the "../" sequence will cause the program to delete the important.dat file in the parent directory

The following code demonstrates the unrestricted upload of a file with a Java servlet and a path traversal vulnerability. The HTML code is the same as in the previous example with the action attribute of the form sending the upload file request to the Java servlet instead of the PHP code.

good HTML


Choose a file to upload:

When submitted the Java servlet's doPost method will receive the request, extract the name of the file from the Http request header, read the file contents from the request and output the file to the local upload directory.

bad Java

public class FileUploadServlet extends HttpServlet {


...

protected void doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException {

response.setContentType("text/html");
PrintWriter out = response.getWriter();
String contentType = request.getContentType();

// the starting position of the boundary header

int ind = contentType.indexOf("boundary=");
String boundary = contentType.substring(ind+9);

String pLine = new String();
String uploadLocation = new String(UPLOAD_DIRECTORY_STRING); //Constant value

// verify that content type is multipart form data

if (contentType != null && contentType.indexOf("multipart/form-data") != -1) {


// extract the filename from the Http header
BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(request.getInputStream()));
...
pLine = br.readLine();
String filename = pLine.substring(pLine.lastIndexOf(""), pLine.lastIndexOf("""));
...

// output the file to the local upload directory

try {

BufferedWriter bw = new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter(uploadLocation+filename, true));
for (String line; (line=br.readLine())!=null; ) {

if (line.indexOf(boundary) == -1) {

bw.write(line);
bw.newLine();
bw.flush();

}

} //end of for loop
bw.close();

} catch (IOException ex) {...}

// output successful upload response HTML page

}
// output unsuccessful upload response HTML page

else
{...}

}


...

}

This code does not check the filename that is provided in the header, so an attacker can use "../" sequences to write to files outside of the intended directory. Depending on the executing environment, the attacker may be able to specify arbitrary files to write to, leading to a wide variety of consequences, from code execution, XSS (CWE-79), or system crash.

Also, this code does not perform a check on the type of the file being uploaded. This could allow an attacker to upload any executable file or other file with malicious code (CWE-434).

分析过的案例

标识 说明 链接
CVE-2010-0467 Newsletter module allows reading arbitrary files using "../" sequences. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2010-0467
CVE-2009-4194 FTP server allows deletion of arbitrary files using ".." in the DELE command. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-4194
CVE-2009-4053 FTP server allows creation of arbitrary directories using ".." in the MKD command. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-4053
CVE-2009-0244 OBEX FTP service for a Bluetooth device allows listing of directories, and creation or reading of files using ".." sequences. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-0244
CVE-2009-4013 Software package maintenance program allows overwriting arbitrary files using "../" sequences. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-4013
CVE-2009-4449 Bulletin board allows attackers to determine the existence of files using the avatar. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-4449
CVE-2009-4581 PHP program allows arbitrary code execution using ".." in filenames that are fed to the include() function. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-4581
CVE-2010-0012 Overwrite of files using a .. in a Torrent file. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2010-0012
CVE-2010-0013 Chat program allows overwriting files using a custom smiley request. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2010-0013
CVE-2008-5748 Chain: external control of values for user's desired language and theme enables path traversal. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2008-5748
CVE-2009-1936 Chain: library file sends a redirect if it is directly requested but continues to execute, allowing remote file inclusion and path traversal. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-1936

Notes

Relationship
Pathname equivalence can be regarded as a type of canonicalization error.
Relationship
Some pathname equivalence issues are not directly related to directory traversal, rather are used to bypass security-relevant checks for whether a file/directory can be accessed by the attacker (e.g. a trailing "/" on a filename could bypass access rules that don't expect a trailing /, causing a server to provide the file when it normally would not).
Terminology

Research Gap
Many variants of path traversal attacks are probably under-studied with respect to root cause. CWE-790 and CWE-182 begin to cover part of this gap.
Research Gap

分类映射

映射的分类名 ImNode ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Path Traversal
OWASP Top Ten 2007 A4 CWE More Specific Insecure Direct Object Reference
OWASP Top Ten 2004 A2 CWE More Specific Broken Access Control
CERT C Secure Coding FIO02-C Canonicalize path names originating from untrusted sources
SEI CERT Perl Coding Standard IDS00-PL Exact Canonicalize path names before validating them
WASC 33 Path Traversal
Software Fault Patterns SFP16 Path Traversal
OMG ASCSM ASCSM-CWE-22

相关攻击模式

  • CAPEC-126
  • CAPEC-64
  • CAPEC-76
  • CAPEC-78
  • CAPEC-79

引用

文章来源于互联网:scap中文网

特别标注: 本站(CN-SEC.COM)所有文章仅供技术研究,若将其信息做其他用途,由用户承担全部法律及连带责任,本站不承担任何法律及连带责任,请遵守中华人民共和国安全法.
  • 我的微信
  • 微信扫一扫
  • weinxin
  • 我的微信公众号
  • 微信扫一扫
  • weinxin
admin
  • 本文由 发表于 2021年12月16日16:31:21
  • 转载请保留本文链接(CN-SEC中文网:感谢原作者辛苦付出):
                  CWE-22 对路径名的限制不恰当(路径遍历) http://cn-sec.com/archives/612995.html

发表评论

匿名网友 填写信息

:?: :razz: :sad: :evil: :!: :smile: :oops: :grin: :eek: :shock: :???: :cool: :lol: :mad: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :idea: :arrow: :neutral: :cry: :mrgreen: