Skip to main content

ViewState and CSRF

Today, me and my colleagues- Chintan and Ronnie were having a long discussion about ViewState's ability to thwart CSRF attacks. While Chintan's argument was that CSRF is possible even the application is implementing ViewState, Ronnie's thought was it's virtually impossible to launch a CSRF attack on ViewState enabled application. My idea was that it's not impossible but very difficult and takes a great expertise to launch the attack. We also saw various articles were mentioning the ViewState as a countermeasures to CSRF, at the same time they were not denying the fact that this can also be circumvented.
For sake of doing some research over topic I stumbled upon some articles and came to some conclusion:
When attempting to exploit a CSRF issue, the attacker will try to remove the viewstate from the page, since often viewstate is not required for a page to function properly. If the page complains when the viewstate is removed, the attacker will try logging into the application, visiting the page, and then copying the viewstate from the page into the CSRF exploit. Depending on the application, ASP.Net may accept the viewstate on behalf of the victim. Viewstate may be omitted or substituted because not all applications depend on the viewstate being present or initialized.

To mitigate the CSRF weaknesses, ASP.Net 1.1 introduced the Page.ViewStateUser-Key property. The property can be used to add entropy to the viewstate. When ASP.Net receives a postback it will use the ViewStateUserKey along with the validation key to calculate the page viewstate’s HMAC. By adding a unique value per user per page, it will not be possible for an attacker to substitute his own viewstate when creating a CSRF exploit.

Now starting .Net 1.1 the applications are 'almost' secure against the CSRF. Having said that it is also recommended to implement anti-CSRF token in the application. That will make the application's defense against CSRF more robust.

Comments

Rafay said…
THanks for such a nice article, however i believe that if the view_state would contain the session_id of the victim, it would be almost impossible to exploit the CSRF.
January 10, 2013 at 4:32 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

File Upload through Null Byte Injection

Sometimes, during file upload we come across situation wherein there would be check on the file extension at the client side as well as server side too. If the application does allow only .jpeg extension to be uploaded, the client side java script checks for the extension of the file before passing the request. We all know that how easily this can be defeated. Some applications, checks for the extension at the server side also. That's not easy to bypass. However there are some ways with which it still can be bypassed. Most of server side scripts are written in high level languages such as Php, Java etc who still use some C/C++ libraries to read the file name and contents. That leads to the problem. In C/C++ a line ends with /00 or which is called Null Byte. So whenever the interpreter sees a null byte at the end of the a string, it stops reading thinking it has reached at the end of the string. This can be used for the bypass. It works for many servers, specially php servers. T...
1 comment
Read more

'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 t...
3 comments
Read more

jtool - an alternative to otool

jtool comes with a capability of running on Linux environment. Some ipa scanning tools are created to run on Linux environment where mac environment is not available. In such cases tools such as otool and class-dump-z will not work. So jtool can be an alternative to otool. For more information on jtool please refer to http://www.newosxbook.com/tools/jtool.html . It lists down various commands which have same output as otool or a equivalent. There are several commands mentioned in link. But for our customized requirements and basis checks I have listed down the below ones after running on many binaries. The outputs are similar or equivalent to otool and class-dump-z: Commands for checking PIE flag (ASLR) in jTool jtool -d -v -arch | grep stack ·           Automatic Reference Counting (ARC) protection: jtool -d -v -arch | grep _objc_release ·           To check if the devic...
1 comment
Read more