Skip to main content

Disclosure of Anti-CSRF Token in URL

Is it a problem? I think no, as long as the token is Per Page, One-time use token.
Actually in one of the application, we had recommended to implement anti-CSRF tokens. When the application came back to us for verification process, we found that the application was implementing some sort of CSRF tokens, which were:
1) Going in GET request ie. were being added to URL.
2) Were being generated per page.
3) Were one-time tokens.

The only concern was the token in GET request. I mean it can be said that it is certainly not a best practice but the potential risk is very minimal. In a scenario where it can be exploited depends on following constraints:
1. The victim should be logged into the application (obvious).
2. The CSRF token must be transmitted in a GET request.
3. The attacker must be able to capture the token or from a repository (log files, browser cache etc).
4. The attacker needs to trick the victim to click on the crafted link.
5. The victim's session that holds the exposed token should be still valid ie, it is not timed-put,invalidated,logout, expire etc.

The 5th point is major hurdle in executing CSRF in this scenario. In our case, although the application was exposing tokens in URL but it was generating them per page/request and one-time only. So even if you have got the token for the current GET request there is minimal chance that you can execute it as next time the user will be browsing the same page with some other unique token.Even if the CSRF token is exposed and the attacker is somehow able to figure out the associated user, the token is only valid for the lifetime of one request.
Also I had consulted with few security experts and one of them

Is the csrf token per/page or one-time use for each request? The difference being if a client accesses the same page multiple times is the token changed? If not, then GET may be an issue.

I have seen the following csrf token implementation strategies:

1) Per Session token
2) Per Page token
3) Per Page, One-time use token

#3 is the most secure as it prevents token reuse.

--
Ryan

So our application was changing the request and was one-time, so it was good enough!
We might have suggested them to put it into PUT request but again they had to do again some levels of coding. And as far as the things are secure enough in GET why to go for PUT. I am not supporting tokens in GET but trying to make a balance between security and client.

Comments

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