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

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...