Thursday, November 19, 2009

'Information Leakage-Improper Error Handling' dropped

From Owasp Top 10 2010 List, the issue 'Information Leakage-Improper Error Handling' has been dropped. But it's not the final list,its child release actually. Bu I feel it shouldn't be set aside because its still the one of the prevalent issues these days. That's why I mailed to Dave Wicher:
Hi Dave,

Excellent work, Congrats!

Just one little query- Don't you think that Information Leakage & Improper
Error Handling still deserves to be in Top 10?
Dave replied:

This topic is clearly a very prevalent issue that deserves attention by
most organizations. However, the typical impact of such a flaw is usually very low. Therefore, the overall risk of this type of flaw is lower than the other items in the top 10, which is why it was replaced in this update with one of the 2 new items.
Regarding dropping Info Leak/Error handling - It is incredibly

prevalent, no question. But their impact is typically very low, so the

overall risk is low, which is why it fell out of this new risk focused

top 10. It doesn't mean this isn't important, but the other items in our

opinion introduce more risk.
We'd rather have people spend more time fixing the actual flaws than

focusing on fixing info leak/error handling that help them find actual

flaws.

Dave


Monday, November 16, 2009

OWASP Top 10 2010 (Candidate 1) released !

The release candidate for the OWASP Top Ten for 2010 has been officially released at the OWASP AppSec DC Conference today (Nov 13, 2009). This document is now up for open comment until Dec 31, 2009. The document will be updated and released with a final version in early 2010, hopefully January.

The new additions are:
  • Security Misconfiguration
  • Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards- This I was expecting that sometimes it may be included in OWASP Top 10 because the last year itself I had detected many Open Re directions on various reputed sites. Even after reporting to them they were not paying much attention to it. I think now they can think about it as it made a place in Top 10.
But to my surprise they have excluded Information Leakage for the list which I think is more prevalent than SSL issues.



More information on:
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Top_Ten_Project

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Content Security Policy of Firefox

Firefox support for Content Security Policy (CSP) has been in the news and is now available in test builds for web developers to try. Support for CSP isn’t slated for Firefox 3.6 but is likely to be included in the release after 3.6, mostly likely called 3.7.

This post is targeted at web developers and gives a quick overview of the three kinds of attacks that CSP helps to mitigate and also gives some quick examples so developers can get a sense of how it will work for them.

In case you don’t know what our Content Security Policy code is – and based on anecdotal evidence a lot of people don’t – it’s a set of easy to use tools that allow a web site owner to tell the browser where it should or should not load resources from. In particular it aims to prevent three different classes of common attacks we see on the web today: cross-site scripting, clickjacking and packet sniffing attacks.

Cross-site scripting attacks are largely the result of a mistake made on backend web servers where someone fails to escape data that’s submitted by users. When that happens it’s possible to inject a tag to load JavaScript code from another web site. That code could be harmless but it could also contain something dangerous, like malware. What CSP does is make it possible for a web site author, via HTTP headers, to specify what types of scripts can be loaded and from where. For developers who are setting a policy, it adds a layer of protection where even if they make a mistake it is likely to be mitigated by this additional layer of policy.

Clickjacking attacks are where someone embeds a page into a transparent iframe and “steals” user clicks to activate something dangerous. One particular attack allows a browser to be turned into a remote surveillance device. CSP includes the ability for a page to tell the browser that it never wants to be ever included in an iframe.

And last is the ability for a web site to tell the browser that it never wants resources from that page to be loaded over unencrypted HTTP. Banking and other commerce sites will find this particularly useful.

CSP is very powerful and flexible, allowing you to specify whether or not you want to load different kinds of media, different kinds of script methods, css, can be used to set up loading only from specific other hosts and a large number of other things. It’s meant to be very easy to set up for simple cases but will scale up to pretty complex infrastructure where different resources might be spread out over a large number of machines.

Here are four examples that show common use cases. Each of these examples is a header that’s delivered as a header over HTTP and it affects how the page is rendered.

A site wants all of its content to come from its own domain:

X-Content-Security-Policy: allow 'self'

Example 2: An auction site wants to be able to load images from anywhere, plugin content from a list of trusted media providers and a CDN network and scripts only from its server hosting sanitized JavaScript:

X-Content-Security-Policy: allow 'self'; img-src *; \
object-src media1.com media2.com *.cdn.com; \
script-src trustedscripts.example.com

Example 3: Server administrators want to deny all third-party scripts for the site, and a given project group also wants to disallow media from other sites (header provided by sysadmins and header provided by project group are both present):

X-Content-Security-Policy: allow *; script-src 'self'
X-Content-Security-Policy: allow *; script-src 'self'; media-src 'self';

Example 4: An online payments site wants to ensure that all of the content in its page is loaded over SSL to prevent attackers from eavesdropping on requests for insecure content:

X-Content-Security-Policy: allow https://*:443

The implementation isn’t quite complete yet, but it’s pretty close. There’s more information on the demo page for CSP, read the overview or read the spec itself.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

The right combination of HTTP/HTTPS and GET/POST

I came across an excellent article where all the combination of HTTP/HTTP and GET/POST were compared to each other. It was in form of Metrics. It shows different problems with different combination.


The safest option for transmission of any sensitive data is to use POST statements over SSL/TLS. Any other option will expose data at some point in the communication.