Skip to main content

Mould it as per your need

We had a discussion with our colleagues over XSS issue found in one application. Initially there was not input validation at all-you can insert simple script tag and execute XSS. Following our recommendations they filtered out certain special characters like (>,<," etc) also they encoded them at time of output. Fair enough? No. Actually they implemented half of the recommendations- ie. they worked on blacklisting and left out whitelisting. There are a number of models to think about when designing a data validation strategy, which are listed from the strongest to the weakest as follows. 1.Exact Match (Constrain) 2.Known Good (Accept) 3.Reject Known bad (Reject) 4.Encode Known bad (Sanitize) They were implementing last two of strategies only. So the application was now filtering out normal XSS vectors like "><script>alert(...);</script> based attacks. But what happens when we provide eventhalders like onmouseover,onload etc-XSS executed. When we brought this to customers' notice they said that alphabets and " (double quotes) are valid inputs in the comment fileds, how can we filter them out, not even whitelisting approach will work here as these are valid characters. So after a brainstorming session with them we advised them to mould as per their need. It's not like that you blindly follow strategies mentioned above for whole application. We suggested them for that specific case where " (double quotes) and alphabets were valid inputs (in comments fields) don't filter " (double quotes) but atleast filter even handlers-onload,onfocus etc by using this sample script: .replaceAll("(?i)<.*?\\s+on.*?>.*?", "");

It removes on* attributes like onLoad or onClick

My point is that in some cases you need to shape your strategies as per your need to strike a fine balance between security and user-friendliness.

Comments

530 Geeks said…
What you are recommending is incorrect.

The only way to solve XSS is Escaping Output. Input Validation has NOTHING to do with XSS prevention.

Refer to OWASP's XSS Prevention cheat sheet. There are specific rules for encoding attribute values. If you follow OWASP's recommendation, your application can accept any string and still display it back to the user without any XSS.

There is no need to mould security on an application basis. OWASPs recommendations for XSS are good enough to fix XSS in all kinds of websites.
Nilesh Kumar said…
Hi 530 Geeks,

Thanks for your valuable comments!

I can understand what you are saying. I have already mentioned the about encoding (4.Encode Known bad (Sanitise)) in my blog. They are doing that also. But in the case of their comment field if they encode " it comes as &quotes; which doesn't look good.
What I want to say is sometimes you have to make a balance between security and user-friendliness.

Regards,
Nilesh
530 Geeks said…
If it appears as & q u o t ; , they are not escaping/encoding it properly. I suspect they are double encoding. It perhaps appears as & a m p ; q u o t ; in the HTML.

I am trying to say that "Escaping Output" is alone sufficient for a usable and secure website. Input Validation helps, but it neither necessary nor fool-proof.

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...