Skip to main content

Flawed CSRF token implementation

The sole purpose of (secret) CRSF token is to help the application identify authenticated or unauthenticated requests. Any request that doesn’t contain csrf tokens are treated as unauthenticated one thus rejected by the application as the csrf tokens are only available to the authenticated users.
But contrary to that, in one application, the csrf tokens are generated before login and worse, it’s not regenerated after successful authentication of the user. This defeats the purpose of anti-csrf approach.

Anti-CSRF best practices:

    Don’t issue csrf tokens before authentication
    Always regenerate the tokens after successful authentication, if issued before authentication
    Use POST methods for critical transactions embedding csrf tokens
    Don’t send the csrf tokens in GET requests as they may reveal it in browser logs etc

In few Ruby based apps, where the token was being generated before authentication and same was being used.



Mitigation: (taken from 'Symbolic Security Analysis of Ruby-on-Rails Web Applications' white paper):

While talking about csrf protection, they say, Finally, we must account for “insider attacks,” i.e., attacks by users of the application (against other users of the application). To understand this issue, we need to look again at the implementation of token generation on line 30 above. The complication here is that session[:_csrf_token] is not reset automatically by Rails between logins, hence different users that log in from the same IP address could inadvertently be given the same CSRF token. To properly protect against CSRF, the application should always change session[:_csrf_token] to nil before logging in a user, so that the token is regenerated whenever a different user logs in. Rails provides a method, reset_session, which has just this effect:

class Controller::Base # continued

    def reset_session() session = {} end

end

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Using an AirPcap device in Windows with Wireshark

Capturing wireless traffic in a Windows environment is unfortunately not as easy as a setting change. As with most Windows-based software, drivers in Windows are often not open source and do not allow for configuration change into monitor mode. With this in mind, we must use a specialized piece of hardware known as an AirPcap device. Once you have obtained an AirPcap device you will be required to install the software on the accompanying CD to your analysis computer. The configurable options include: • Interface - Select the device you are using for your capture here. Some advanced analysis scenarios may require you to use more than one AirPcap device to sniff simultaneously on multiple channels. • Blink LED - Clicking this button will make the LED lights on the AirPcap device blink. This is primarily used to identify the specific adapter you are using if you are using multiple AirPcap devices. • Channel - In this field, you select the channel you want AirPcap to listen on. Extension C...

Some one watching where you visited!

Yes... Mozilla has been susceptible to browser-history stealing java script code. Today, Giorgio posted some cool information about the exploit. Mozilla is already working on this. This bug has been reported. Actually they have set up a web site to show the proof-of-concept. Visit www.statrpanic.com in FF,Safari or Netscape and it will tell you which websites have you been already ! But I am not sure it will work in IE or not because my IE is not responding to the website. Clearing history of visited website makes you safe to this attack. I mean this is one way..may be there are other ways to exploit this. But I have found this effective. Try it yourself in FF and then in IE and see the results.

Hijacking SSL

SSL has been in centerstage of researches as well as attacks for quite long time. Last year in a conference in Germany researchers showed how to generate duplicate certificates exploiting MD5 hashing to break SSL. Later in Black Hat, Maxie showed how to exploit a field in SSL certificates to sign an own forged certificate to present it to the client. The main feature of this attack was that the client will never get any warning dialog box by the browser and subsequently the hacker doing an MITM can see the conversation between the client and server. The client will even get a PADLOCK sign to be assured that all things are going via encryption, but in reality it's not. Maxie released a tool SSLStrip to carry out these attacks. The tool has been used by many researchers around the world to carry out the attacks. They all used Unix machines as many open source utilities makes it easier to run the tool on it. My attempt was to run the tool on a Windows machine. It has been never easy t...