Skip to main content

URL rewriting and CSRF

Is url rewriting a mitigation of CSRF? Though, almost sure it's not a foolproof solution, I put up this query before all security gurus out there on webappsec.

The application in question was replacing all the urls with some randomized and unique long strings in this format:

https://mysite.com/myportal/b1/04_SjzQ0NTYyNzS2MLTUj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOJDfU19LNxMTQwsAoydDDyNXb0cnc2dDA2czfRzoxwVAVLe6h0!/

The url was long enough and sufficiently randomized.

The argument in favor of randomized url as csrf mitigation is, even an attacker is able to grab the url, it won't be valid for next session. So, the attacker can't exploit it by sending/ embedding in link/ images etc as it would stand invalid. Thus csrf mitigated.

But let's consider the scenario wherein an attacker goes to logged in victim's machine, applied his social engineering tricks and note down the url , convince user to click the forged link sent to him. If the user stays at the same page, he gets exploited. Though, it's a infeasible scenario and unpractical one and there's very remote chance of its technical viability, still it's a risk.  The attack window is certainly very small and short timed, but why to take chances.Even, I have detected some static urls in a page which don't rewritten each time, so they can be easily forged. Therefore it's always best mitigation is to implement anti-csrf tokens on the pages where critical actions are performed.

The url rewriting improves the anti-csrf defense mechanism, but we need to be sure that the strings/ tokens etc are unique and sufficiently randomized.So, even they are cached, they are unusable in next session or unpredictable. Invalidating them is always a part of good session management once the user is logged out.

However there are flipside of rewriting is that it can't be bookmarked for a later use and it would be a server intensive task as generating random strings for each and every ulr will affect the performance too.

So the bottom line is, though url rewriting raises the bar it's not foolproof solution to CSRF. The safest approach is using anti-csrf token in pages.

I thank all the people on webappsec.org mailing list for such a nice discussion.

 

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hello Sir,

I want ur favour.
I want t know if i put this query ’ 1 OR 1=1‘“ in search field the record is not displayed but the editinf field is displayed..

so i this page vulnerable to sql?

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

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

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