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 "Top 10 2010-A1-Injection"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Top_10_2010:TopTemplate|usenext=NextLink|next=-Broken Authentication and Session Management|useprev=PrevLink|prev=-Cross Site Request Forgery|usemain=MainLink|main=}} | {{Top_10_2010:TopTemplate|usenext=NextLink|next=-Broken Authentication and Session Management|useprev=PrevLink|prev=-Cross Site Request Forgery|usemain=MainLink|main=}} | ||
| − | {{Top_10_2010: | + | {{Top_10_2010:SubsectionVulnerableTemplate|Injection| |
| − | + | 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. For SQL calls, this means using bind variables in all prepared statements and stored procedures, and avoiding 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 the use of interpreters and trace the data flow through the application. Manual penetration testers can confirm these issues by crafting exploits that confirm the vulnerability. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | and | + | Automated dynamic scanning which exercises the application may provide insight into whether some exploitable injection problems exist. Scanners cannot always reach interpreters and can have difficulty detecting whether an attack was successful. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | and | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | and | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | and | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | and | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
== Example Attack Scenario == | == Example Attack Scenario == | ||
Revision as of 21:30, 13 April 2010
NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE LATEST VERSION. Please visit the OWASP Top 10 project page to find the latest edition.
Am I Vulnerable to Injection?
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. For SQL calls, this means using bind variables in all prepared statements and stored procedures, and avoiding 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 the use of interpreters and trace the data flow through the application. Manual penetration testers can confirm these issues by crafting exploits that confirm the vulnerability.
Automated dynamic scanning which exercises the application may provide insight into whether some exploitable injection problems exist. Scanners cannot always reach interpreters and can have difficulty detecting whether an attack was successful.
Example Attack Scenario
How Do I Prevent XSS?
References
- http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-4899
- http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-3389
- http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2002-0580
Related Articles
References
- CWE: CWE-200 (Information Leak), CWE-203 (Discrepancy Information Leak), CWE-215 (Information Leak Through Debug Information), CWE-209 (Error Message Information Leak), others.
- WASC Threat Classification:
