Top 10-2017 A1-Injection - Revision history

T.Gigler: Editorial changes (fixed line feeds)

2018-01-01T16:26:04Z

Editorial changes (fixed line feeds)

T.Gigler: Editorial changes e.g. line feeds, bold or underlined text

2018-01-01T15:58:51Z

Editorial changes e.g. line feeds, bold or underlined text

T.Gigler: Prepare OWASP Top 10-2017 Release (Content)

2017-12-15T23:37:49Z

Prepare OWASP Top 10-2017 Release (Content)

Show changes

T.Gigler: Updated PrevLink and NextLink

2017-12-12T00:19:22Z

Updated PrevLink and NextLink

T.Gigler: T.Gigler moved page Top 10 2017-A1-Injection to Top 10-2017 A1-Injection: OWASP Top 10-2017 Release

2017-12-11T23:44:52Z

T.Gigler moved page Top 10 2017-A1-Injection to Top 10-2017 A1-Injection: OWASP Top 10-2017 Release

T.Gigler: set font of examples to bold

2017-04-23T21:27:12Z

set font of examples to bold

T.Gigler: underlined all links and Scenario #1/2, redefined links to OWASP as internal links

2017-04-23T12:13:11Z

underlined all links and Scenario #1/2, redefined links to OWASP as internal links

Neil Smithline: Created page with "{{Top_10_2013:TopTemplate |usenext=2013NextLink |next=A2-{{Top_10_2010:ByTheNumbers |2 |year=2017 |language=en}} |useprev..."

2017-04-19T02:06:51Z

Created page with "{{Top_10_2013:TopTemplate |usenext=2013NextLink |next=A2-{{Top_10_2010:ByTheNumbers |2 |year=2017 |language=en}} |useprev..."

New page

{{Top_10_2013:TopTemplate
|usenext=2013NextLink
|next=A2-{{Top_10_2010:ByTheNumbers
|2
|year=2017
|language=en}}
|useprev=2013PrevLink
|prev={{Top_10:LanguageFile|text=top10|year=2017|language=en}}
|year=2017
|language=en
}}

{{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableHeaderBeginTemplate|year=2017|language=en}}
{{Top_10:SummaryTableTemplate|exploitability=1|prevalence=2|detectability=2|impact=1|year=2017|language=en}}
{{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableHeaderEndTemplate|year=2017}}
<td {{Template:Top 10 2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>Consider anyone who can send untrusted data to the system, including external users, internal users, and administrators.

</td>
<td {{Template:Top 10 2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>Attackers send simple text-based attacks that exploit the syntax of the targeted interpreter. Almost any source of data can be an injection vector, including internal sources.

</td>
<td colspan=2 {{Template:Top 10 2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>[[Injection_Flaws | Injection flaws]] occur when an application sends untrusted data to an interpreter. Injection flaws are very prevalent, particularly in legacy code. They are often found in SQL, LDAP, XPath, or NoSQL queries; OS commands; XML parsers, SMTP Headers, expression languages, etc. Injection flaws are easy to discover when examining code, but frequently hard to discover via testing. Scanners and fuzzers can help attackers find injection flaws.

</td>
<td {{Template:Top 10 2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>Injection can result in data loss or corruption, lack of accountability, or denial of access. Injection can sometimes lead to complete host takeover.

</td>
<td {{Template:Top 10 2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>Consider the business value of the affected data and the platform running the interpreter. All data could be stolen, modified, or deleted. Could your reputation be harmed?

</td>
{{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableEndTemplate|year=2017}}

{{Top_10:SubsectionTableBeginTemplate|type=main}} {{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=vulnerableTo|position=firstLeft|risk=1|year=2017|language=en}}
The best way to find out if an application is vulnerable to injection is to verify that all use of interpreters clearly separates untrusted data from the command or query. In many cases, it is recommended to avoid the interpreter, or disable it (e.g., XXE), if possible. For SQL calls, use bind variables in all prepared statements and stored procedures, or avoid dynamic queries.
Checking the code is a fast and accurate way to see if the application uses interpreters safely. Code analysis tools can help a security analyst find use of interpreters and trace data flow through the application. Penetration testers can validate these issues by crafting exploits that confirm the vulnerability.
Automated dynamic scanning which exercises the application may provide insight into whether some exploitable injection flaws exist. Scanners cannot always reach interpreters and have difficulty detecting whether an attack was successful. Poor error handling makes injection flaws easier to discover.
{{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=howPrevent|position=right|risk=1|year=2017|language=en}}
Preventing injection requires keeping untrusted data separate from commands and queries.
# The preferred option is to use a safe API which avoids the use of the interpreter entirely or provides a parameterized interface. Be careful with APIs, such as stored procedures, that are parameterized, but can still introduce injection under the hood.
# If a parameterized API is not available, you should carefully escape special characters using the specific escape syntax for that interpreter. [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Java_Encoder_Project OWASP’s Java Encoder] and similar libraries provide such escaping routines.
# Positive or “white list” input validation is also recommended, but is not a complete defense as many situations require special characters be allowed. If special characters are required, only approaches (1) and (2) above will make their use safe. [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/ESAPI OWASP’s ESAPI] has an extensible library of [https://static.javadoc.io/org.owasp.esapi/esapi/2.1.0.1/org/owasp/esapi/Validator.html white list input validation routines].

{{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=example|position=left|risk=1|year=2017|language=en}}
'''Scenario #1:''' An application uses untrusted data in the construction of the following '''vulnerable''' SQL call:

{{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}
String query = "SELECT * FROM accounts WHERE custID='" + request.getParameter("id") + "'";

{{Top_10_2010:ExampleEndTemplate}}
'''Scenario #2:''' Similarly, an application’s blind trust in frameworks may result in queries that are still vulnerable, (e.g., Hibernate Query Language (HQL)):
{{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}
Query HQLQuery = session.createQuery("FROM accounts
WHERE custID='" + request.getParameter("id") + "'");'''

{{Top_10_2010:ExampleEndTemplate}}
In both cases, the attacker modifies the ‘id’ parameter value in her browser to send: ' or '1'='1. For example:

{{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}<nowiki>
http://example.com/app/accountView?id=' or '1'='1
</nowiki>{{Top_10_2010:ExampleEndTemplate}}
This changes the meaning of both queries to return all the records from the accounts table. More dangerous attacks could modify data or even invoke stored procedures.

{{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=references|position=right|risk=1|year=2017|language=en}}
{{Top_10_2010:SubSubsectionOWASPReferencesTemplate}}
* [[SQL_Injection_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet | OWASP SQL Injection Prevention Cheat Sheet]]
* [[Query_Parameterization_Cheat_Sheet | OWASP Query Parameterization Cheat Sheet]]
* [[Command_Injection | OWASP Command Injection Article]]
* [[XML_External_Entity_(XXE)_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet| OWASP XXE Prevention Cheat Sheet]]
* [[Testing_for_SQL_Injection_(OTG-INPVAL-005)|OWASP Testing Guide: Chapter on SQL Injection Testing]]
{{Top_10_2010:SubSubsectionExternalReferencesTemplate}}
* [http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html CWE Entry 77 on Command Injection]
* [http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/89.html CWE Entry 89 on SQL Injection]
* [http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/564.html CWE Entry 564 on Hibernate Injection]
* [http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/611.html CWE Entry 611 on Improper Restriction of XXE]
* [http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/917.html|CWE Entry 917 on Expression Language Injection]

{{Top_10_2013:BottomAdvancedTemplate
|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}
|usenext=2013NextLink
|next=A2-{{Top_10_2010:ByTheNumbers
|2
|year=2017
|language=en}}
|useprev=2013PrevLink
|prev={{Top_10:LanguageFile|text=top10|year=2017|language=en}}
|year=2017
|language=en
}}

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
      <td colspan=2  {{Template:Top_10_2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>
 <!--- Security Weakness: --->
-Injection flaws are very prevalent, particularly in legacy code. Injection vulnerabilities are often found in SQL, LDAP, XPath, or NoSQL queries, OS commands, XML parsers, SMTP headers, expression languages, and ORM queries.
+Injection flaws are very prevalent, particularly in legacy code. Injection vulnerabilities are often found in SQL, LDAP, XPath, or NoSQL queries, OS commands, XML parsers, SMTP headers, expression languages, and ORM queries.<br/>Injection flaws are easy to discover when examining code. Scanners and fuzzers can help attackers find injection flaws. </td>
      <td colspan=2  {{Template:Top_10_2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>
 <!--- Impacts: --->
-Injection can result in data loss, corruption, or disclosure to unauthorized parties, loss of accountability, or denial of access. Injection can sometimes lead to complete host takeover.
+Injection can result in data loss, corruption, or disclosure to unauthorized parties, loss of accountability, or denial of access. Injection can sometimes lead to complete host takeover.<br/>The business impact depends on the needs of the application and data.</td>
 {{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableEndTemplate|year=2017}}
@@ Line 51: / Line 47: @@
 String query = "SELECT * FROM accounts WHERE custID='" + request.getParameter("id") + "'";
 </span></b>{{Top_10_2010:ExampleEndTemplate}}
 <b>Scenario #2</b>: Similarly, an application’s blind trust in frameworks may result in queries that are still vulnerable, (e.g. Hibernate Query Language (HQL)):
 {{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}<b><span style="color:red;">

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
      <td colspan=2  {{Template:Top_10_2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>
 <!--- Security Weakness: --->
- Injection flaws are very prevalent, particularly in legacy code. Injection vulnerabilities are often found in SQL, LDAP, XPath, or NoSQL queries, OS commands, XML parsers, SMTP headers, expression languages, and ORM queries. Injection flaws are easy to discover when examining code. Scanners and fuzzers can help attackers find injection flaws. </td>
+Injection flaws are very prevalent, particularly in legacy code. Injection vulnerabilities are often found in SQL, LDAP, XPath, or NoSQL queries, OS commands, XML parsers, SMTP headers, expression languages, and ORM queries.
      <td colspan=2  {{Template:Top_10_2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>
 <!--- Impacts: --->
-Injection can result in data loss, corruption, or disclosure to unauthorized parties, loss of accountability, or denial of access. Injection can sometimes lead to complete host takeover. The business impact depends on the needs of the application and data.</td>
+Injection can result in data loss, corruption, or disclosure to unauthorized parties, loss of accountability, or denial of access. Injection can sometimes lead to complete host takeover.
 {{Top_10_2010:SummaryTableEndTemplate|year=2017}}
@@ Line 43: / Line 47: @@
 {{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=exampleAttackScenarios|position=left|year=2017|language=en}}
-<b>Scenario #1</b>: An application uses untrusted data in the construction of the following vulnerable SQL call:
+<b>Scenario #1</b>: An application uses untrusted data in the construction of the following <span style="color:red;"><b><u>vulnerable</u></b></span> SQL call:
 {{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}<b><span style="color:red;">
 String query = "SELECT * FROM accounts WHERE custID='" + request.getParameter("id") + "'";
-</span></b>{{Top_10_2010:ExampleEndTemplate}}<br/>
+</span></b>{{Top_10_2010:ExampleEndTemplate}}
 <b>Scenario #2</b>: Similarly, an application’s blind trust in frameworks may result in queries that are still vulnerable, (e.g. Hibernate Query Language (HQL)):
 {{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}<b><span style="color:red;">
@@ Line 52: / Line 56: @@
 WHERE custID='" + request.getParameter("id") + "'");'''
 </span></b>{{Top_10_2010:ExampleEndTemplate}}
-In both cases, the attacker modifies the ‘id’ parameter value in their browser to send:  ' or '1'='1. For example:
+In both cases, the attacker modifies the ‘id’ parameter value in their browser to send: <span style="color:red;"><b>' or '1'='1</b></span>. For example:
 {{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}<b><span style="color:red;"><nowiki>
 http://example.com/app/accountView?id=' or '1'='1

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 <u>'''Scenario #1:'''</u> An application uses untrusted data in the construction of the following '''vulnerable''' SQL call:
-{{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}<span style="color:red;">
+{{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}<b><span style="color:red;">
 String query = "SELECT * FROM accounts WHERE custID='" + request.getParameter("id") + "'";
-</span>{{Top_10_2010:ExampleEndTemplate}}
+</span></b>{{Top_10_2010:ExampleEndTemplate}}
 <u>'''Scenario #2:'''</u> Similarly, an application’s blind trust in frameworks may result in queries that are still vulnerable, (e.g., Hibernate Query Language (HQL)):
-{{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}<span style="color:red;">
+{{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}<b><span style="color:red;">
 Query HQLQuery = session.createQuery("FROM accounts
 WHERE custID='" + request.getParameter("id") + "'");'''
-</span>{{Top_10_2010:ExampleEndTemplate}}
+</span></b>{{Top_10_2010:ExampleEndTemplate}}
 In both cases, the attacker modifies the ‘id’ parameter value in her browser to send: <span style="color:red;">' or '1'='1</span>. For example:
-{{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}<span style="color:red;"><nowiki>
+{{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}<b><span style="color:red;"><nowiki>
 http://example.com/app/accountView?id=' or '1'='1
-</nowiki></span>{{Top_10_2010:ExampleEndTemplate}}
+</nowiki></span></b>{{Top_10_2010:ExampleEndTemplate}}
 This changes the meaning of both queries to return all the records from the accounts table.  More dangerous attacks could modify data or even invoke stored procedures.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Top_10_2013:TopTemplate
-     |usenext=2013NextLink
+     |usenext=2017NextLink
      |next=A2-{{Top_10_2010:ByTheNumbers
                |2
                |year=2017
                |language=en}}
-     |useprev=2013PrevLink
+     |useprev=2017PrevLink
      |prev={{Top_10:LanguageFile|text=top10|year=2017|language=en}}
      |year=2017
@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 {{Top_10_2013:BottomAdvancedTemplate
      |type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}
-     |usenext=2013NextLink
+     |usenext=2017NextLink
      |next=A2-{{Top_10_2010:ByTheNumbers
                |2
                |year=2017
                |language=en}}
-     |useprev=2013PrevLink
+     |useprev=2017PrevLink
      |prev={{Top_10:LanguageFile|text=top10|year=2017|language=en}}
      |year=2017
      |language=en
 }}

← Older revision	Revision as of 23:44, 11 December 2017
(No difference)

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 </td>
-      <td colspan=2  {{Template:Top 10 2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}>[[Injection_Flaws | Injection flaws]] occur when an application sends untrusted data to an interpreter. Injection flaws are very prevalent, particularly in legacy code.  They are often found in SQL, LDAP, XPath, or NoSQL queries; OS commands; XML parsers, SMTP Headers, expression languages, etc. Injection flaws are easy to discover when examining code, but frequently hard to discover via testing. Scanners and fuzzers can help attackers find injection flaws.
+      <td colspan=2  {{Template:Top 10 2010:SummaryTableRowStyleTemplate|year=2017}}><u>[[Injection_Flaws | Injection flaws]]</u> occur when an application sends untrusted data to an interpreter. Injection flaws are very prevalent, particularly in legacy code.  They are often found in SQL, LDAP, XPath, or NoSQL queries; OS commands; XML parsers, SMTP Headers, expression languages, etc. Injection flaws are easy to discover when examining code, but frequently hard to discover via testing. Scanners and fuzzers can help attackers find injection flaws.
 </td>
@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 Preventing injection requires keeping untrusted data separate from commands and queries.
 # The preferred option is to use a safe API which avoids the use of the interpreter entirely or provides a parameterized interface.  Be careful with APIs, such as stored procedures, that are parameterized, but can still introduce injection under the hood.
-# If a parameterized API is not available, you should carefully escape special characters using the specific escape syntax for that interpreter. [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Java_Encoder_Project OWASP’s Java Encoder] and similar libraries provide such escaping routines.
+# If a parameterized API is not available, you should carefully escape special characters using the specific escape syntax for that interpreter. <u>[[OWASP_Java_Encoder_Project|OWASP’s Java Encoder]]</u> and similar libraries provide such escaping routines.
-# Positive or “white list” input validation is also recommended, but is <u>not</u> a complete defense as many situations require special characters be allowed. If special characters are required, only approaches (1) and (2) above will make their use safe. [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/ESAPI OWASP’s ESAPI] has an extensible library of [https://static.javadoc.io/org.owasp.esapi/esapi/2.1.0.1/org/owasp/esapi/Validator.html white list input validation routines].
+# Positive or “white list” input validation is also recommended, but is <u>not</u> a complete defense as many situations require special characters be allowed. If special characters are required, only approaches (1) and (2) above will make their use safe. <u>[[ESAPI|OWASP’s ESAPI]]</u> has an extensible library of <u>[https://static.javadoc.io/org.owasp.esapi/esapi/2.1.0.1/org/owasp/esapi/Validator.html white list input validation routines]</u>.
 {{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=example|position=left|risk=1|year=2017|language=en}}
-'''Scenario #1:''' An application uses untrusted data in the construction of the following '''vulnerable''' SQL call:
+<u>'''Scenario #1:'''</u> An application uses untrusted data in the construction of the following '''vulnerable''' SQL call:
 {{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}<span style="color:red;">
@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 </span>{{Top_10_2010:ExampleEndTemplate}}
 '''Scenario #2:''' Similarly, an application’s blind trust in frameworks may result in queries that are still vulnerable, (e.g., Hibernate Query Language (HQL)):
 {{Top_10_2010:ExampleBeginTemplate|year=2017}}<span style="color:red;">
 Query HQLQuery = session.createQuery("FROM accounts
@@ Line 64: / Line 66: @@
 {{Top_10_2010:SubsectionAdvancedTemplate|type={{Top_10_2010:StyleTemplate}}|subsection=references|position=right|risk=1|year=2017|language=en}}
 {{Top_10_2010:SubSubsectionOWASPReferencesTemplate}}
-* [[SQL_Injection_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet | OWASP SQL Injection Prevention Cheat Sheet]]
+* <u>[[SQL_Injection_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet | OWASP SQL Injection Prevention Cheat Sheet]]</u>
-* [[Query_Parameterization_Cheat_Sheet | OWASP Query Parameterization Cheat Sheet]]
+* <u>[[Query_Parameterization_Cheat_Sheet | OWASP Query Parameterization Cheat Sheet]]</u>
-* [[Command_Injection | OWASP Command Injection Article]]
+* <u>[[Command_Injection | OWASP Command Injection Article]]</u>
-* [[XML_External_Entity_(XXE)_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet| OWASP XXE Prevention Cheat Sheet]]
+* <u>[[XML_External_Entity_(XXE)_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet| OWASP XXE Prevention Cheat Sheet]]</u>
-* [[Testing_for_SQL_Injection_(OTG-INPVAL-005)|OWASP Testing Guide: Chapter on SQL Injection Testing]]
+* <u>[[Testing_for_SQL_Injection_(OTG-INPVAL-005)|OWASP Testing Guide: Chapter on SQL Injection Testing]]</u>
 {{Top_10_2010:SubSubsectionExternalReferencesTemplate}}
-* [http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html CWE Entry 77 on Command Injection]
+* <u>[http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html CWE Entry 77 on Command Injection]</u>
-* [http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/89.html CWE Entry 89 on SQL Injection]
+* <u>[http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/89.html CWE Entry 89 on SQL Injection]</u>
-* [http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/564.html CWE Entry 564 on Hibernate Injection]
+* <u>[http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/564.html CWE Entry 564 on Hibernate Injection]</u>
-* [http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/611.html CWE Entry 611 on Improper Restriction of XXE]
+* <u>[http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/611.html CWE Entry 611 on Improper Restriction of XXE]</u>
-* [http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/917.html|CWE Entry 917 on Expression Language Injection]
+* <u>[http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/917.html|CWE Entry 917 on Expression Language Injection]</u>
 {{Top_10_2013:BottomAdvancedTemplate