Skip to main content

Effective way of preventing malicious file upload

The below are all the prescribed best practices when deciding to upload a file in a web application. The below are list of implemented approaches:

A few points:

  • Extension whitelistng: Obvious and the first line of defense was to white listing of extensions. A simple but easily by-passable approach. Good to have this approach.
  • File header type checking: This helps prevents the above bypass. Even if the request is captured and tampered to include a restricted file (say exe), the application will check the file header (the magic nos) of the file and reject it. Suppose an application only accepts .pdf files and expects %pdf header, but when we try uploading an exe which has a header MZ, the file will not be uploaded. In this case even though you try replacing the MZ with %pdf, the file will get uploaded but the resultant file would be treated as a pdf and not an exe, so becomes useless.
  • Content type: The content type decides how to treat/ render this file once uploaded. The application restricts the type of Content Type in the request. Any attempt to change the content type to something which is not whitelisted will not let the application upload the file at all.
  • Anti Null-Byte: Sometimes in php based application, it's possible to by pass the extension restrictions by inserting the NULL bytes in the file name, so that the application check the last extension which is valid but while reading the file name once it's uploaded it discards the anything after the null byte and effectively uploading a php file. The application concerned was even filtering the file names and did not allow any special characters in the file name.
  • Size of the file: Another effective approach is to check the file size is only within the prescribed limit. There's no use of allowing a file with size of 100 MB if it just meant to be profile pic upload. Another good to have approach.
  • Random file names: The files getting uploaded were being assigned a different random name. so it's hard to guess the file name which needs to be accessed. The original file name is discarded.
  • File contents scanning: The file was being checked for any seemingly malicious codes before uploading. Our attempt to upload an innocent looking file with an embedded script was unsuccessful. 
  • Exiftool: We tried exiftool to alter a file header and insert an script and upload the modified image file. The file gets uploaded as all the above check get passed, but the code would not execute since the application can not invoke the headers. It just renders the file.
A mix of above approaches seems to be pretty solid when trying to thwart malicious file upload.


Comments

Post a Comment

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...
5 comments
Read more

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
4 comments
Read more