This site is the archived OWASP Foundation Wiki and is no longer accepting Account Requests.
To view the new OWASP Foundation website, please visit https://owasp.org

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) Prevention Cheat Sheet"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
A referer check is a valid form of protection and is currently being used to stop the most dangerous CSRF vulnerability ever discovered (according to the DHS: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/643049).  If you think it be exploited,  PROVE IT.  Stop spreading clearly false information on OWASP.
 
A referer check is a valid form of protection and is currently being used to stop the most dangerous CSRF vulnerability ever discovered (according to the DHS: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/643049).  If you think it be exploited,  PROVE IT.  Stop spreading clearly false information on OWASP.
 +
 +
==Is this statement really correct?==
 +
''This means that while an attacker can send any value he wants with a malicious CSRF request, the attacker will be unable to modify or read the value stored in the cookie.
 +
''
 +
 +
This seems incorrect.  An attacker can modify cookies from a sibling domain.  See https://media.blackhat.com/eu-13/briefings/Lundeen/bh-eu-13-deputies-still-confused-lundeen-wp.pdf for examples.  Thus double-submit csrf cookie should also be checked for some tie to the logged in session so that it can't just be pushed in.

Revision as of 01:11, 28 July 2014

Don't post theoretical attacks, or "here say" on any OWASP page.

If you edit this page, please provide a rational. If you make a mindless edit without rationalization, it maybe reverted.

A referer check is a valid form of protection and is currently being used to stop the most dangerous CSRF vulnerability ever discovered (according to the DHS: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/643049). If you think it be exploited, PROVE IT. Stop spreading clearly false information on OWASP.

Is this statement really correct?

This means that while an attacker can send any value he wants with a malicious CSRF request, the attacker will be unable to modify or read the value stored in the cookie.

This seems incorrect. An attacker can modify cookies from a sibling domain. See https://media.blackhat.com/eu-13/briefings/Lundeen/bh-eu-13-deputies-still-confused-lundeen-wp.pdf for examples. Thus double-submit csrf cookie should also be checked for some tie to the logged in session so that it can't just be pushed in.