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

Ardilla- New tool for finding SQL Injection and XSS

Three Researchers -- MIT's Adam Kiezun , Stanford's Philip Guo , and Syracuse University's Karthick Jayaraman -- has developed a new tool ' Ardilla ' that automatically finds and exploits SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities in Web applications. It creates inputs that pinpoint bugs in Web applications and then generates SQL injection and XSS attacks. But for now Ardilla is for PHP -based Web app only. The researchers say Ardilla found 68 never-before found vulnerabilities in five different PHP applications using the tool -- 23 SQL injection and 45 XSS flaws. More information is awaited. For their attack generation techniques refer to their document at: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/mernst/pubs/create-attacks-tr054.pdf

Combining power of Fiddler with Burp

Both are pretty powerful tools when it comes to intercept and modify http communications. But at some point of time, they become even more powerful combo if tied with each other. They complement each other. In a recent pentest I came across a similar situation where in Burp was not able to intercept a specific kind of traffic and Fiddler came to rescue. The application was designed to upload video. The initial communication was straight forward, I mean logging into application, filling up the video details etc. And all these were easily captured by Burp except the point where you hit the Upload Video and it connects to a different server and surprisingly it was not captured by Burp, not sure why, even after repeated attempts. So, I fired Fiddler to see if the it sees this request. But it's a;ways to play with requests using Burp due to it's various functionalities like, Intruder, Repeaters etc. But it was necessary to capture this request in Burp. So the below steps can be

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