Skip to main content

Proxy Chaining

The issue:
While doing one assessment, we faced one issue of our ZAP proxy throwing response ‘401 Unauthorized’ while we were trying to fuzz one application. The application was using NTLM authentication, where the client needs to send the domain name, username and user-password’s hash combination to the server, in order to entertain the requests. NTLM is windows challenge/ response authentication protocol. For more info on NTLM working: .
So, we were not able to fuzz the parameters as it was sending back ‘401 Unauthorized’ response, don’t know for what reason despite us providing the windows credentials to ZAP [Fig-1].


So, we had no other option except trying other similar web proxies. We tried WebScarab and provided Windows authentication by going Tools-> Credentials [Fig-2]
When we again try to capture the request response it was working fine. Then we wanted to fuzz the parameters in one of the URLs. We need to right click on any of the requests on Summary tab and select Use as a fuzz template to send it to Fuzz tab. To our bad luck again, though Webscarab was working fine with windows authentication, in Fuzzing tab, the parameters were not appearing [Fig-3].

Now the scenarios were:
·         ZAP was sending unauthorized error while fuzzing, even we had supplied windows credentials
·         Webscarab was throwing issues as the parameters , to be fuzzed, were not being displayed
A bizarre situation indeed!
Proxy chaining:
So, we are going to use something already available in the tools and we can use it effectively to overcome some of the limitations of individual tools. The proxy chain works as follows:
·         The client (browser) will forward the request to Proxy1 (ZAP)
·         Proxy1 will in turn forward it to Proxy2 (Webscarab)
·         Proxy2 will pass it to the server
So, the requirements for performing this action are:
·         The client (browser) will run on the same port as Proxy1 (ZAP), say 8880
·         We shall use Proxy chaining option in Prox1 (ZAP) to forward this request to Proxy2 (Webscarab)
·         We shall configure the same port no. (say 8008) in Proxy1 (ZAP), on which Proxy2 (Webscarab) is running
·         The Proxy2 (Webscarab) will automatically forward the request to the server

Now, the overall scenarios are similar to Fig-4:

Setting proxy chain option in ZAP:
Go to Tools-> Options-> Connection-> Use an outgoing proxy server and specify the address as and port as 8008 [Fig-5].

Port 8008 is where the next proxy (Webscarab runs). We need not specify it in Webscarab as it’s by default runs at this port.
Now, we all set. Try to access the url in the browser. The browser will forward the request to ZAP on port 8880, ZAP will in turn pass it to Webscarab which is running at port 8008. Webscarab passes this to the server. Chain is complete.
Let’s see how this responds, when we again try to fuzz it in ZAP. Nice, we can now successfully fuzz the parameters, without getting the ‘401 Unauthorized’ response! We now get 200 OK responses [Fig-6].
So, we saw how we can use proxy chaining to use features of both the proxies, subsequently solving individual tool issues. 




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:

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