Skip to main content

Flawed CSRF token implementation

The sole purpose of (secret) CRSF token is to help the application identify authenticated or unauthenticated requests. Any request that doesn’t contain csrf tokens are treated as unauthenticated one thus rejected by the application as the csrf tokens are only available to the authenticated users.
But contrary to that, in one application, the csrf tokens are generated before login and worse, it’s not regenerated after successful authentication of the user. This defeats the purpose of anti-csrf approach.

Anti-CSRF best practices:

    Don’t issue csrf tokens before authentication
    Always regenerate the tokens after successful authentication, if issued before authentication
    Use POST methods for critical transactions embedding csrf tokens
    Don’t send the csrf tokens in GET requests as they may reveal it in browser logs etc

In few Ruby based apps, where the token was being generated before authentication and same was being used.



Mitigation: (taken from 'Symbolic Security Analysis of Ruby-on-Rails Web Applications' white paper):

While talking about csrf protection, they say, Finally, we must account for “insider attacks,” i.e., attacks by users of the application (against other users of the application). To understand this issue, we need to look again at the implementation of token generation on line 30 above. The complication here is that session[:_csrf_token] is not reset automatically by Rails between logins, hence different users that log in from the same IP address could inadvertently be given the same CSRF token. To properly protect against CSRF, the application should always change session[:_csrf_token] to nil before logging in a user, so that the token is regenerated whenever a different user logs in. Rails provides a method, reset_session, which has just this effect:

class Controller::Base # continued

    def reset_session() session = {} end

end

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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...

'Information Leakage-Improper Error Handling' dropped

From Owasp Top 10 2010 List, the issue 'Information Leakage-Improper Error Handling' has been dropped. But it's not the final list,its child release actually. Bu I feel it shouldn't be set aside because its still the one of the prevalent issues these days. That's why I mailed to Dave Wicher: Hi Dave, Excellent work, Congrats! Just one little query- Don't you think that Information Leakage & Improper Error Handling still deserves to be in Top 10? Dave replied: This topic is clearly a very prevalent issue that deserves attention by most organizations. However, the typical impact of such a flaw is usually very low. Therefore, the overall risk of this type of flaw is lower than the other items in the top 10, which is why it was replaced in this update with one of the 2 new items. Regarding dropping Info Leak/Error handling - It is incredibly prevalent, no question. But their impact is typically very low, so the overall risk is low, which is why it fell out of t...

jtool - an alternative to otool

jtool comes with a capability of running on Linux environment. Some ipa scanning tools are created to run on Linux environment where mac environment is not available. In such cases tools such as otool and class-dump-z will not work. So jtool can be an alternative to otool. For more information on jtool please refer to http://www.newosxbook.com/tools/jtool.html . It lists down various commands which have same output as otool or a equivalent. There are several commands mentioned in link. But for our customized requirements and basis checks I have listed down the below ones after running on many binaries. The outputs are similar or equivalent to otool and class-dump-z: Commands for checking PIE flag (ASLR) in jTool jtool -d -v -arch | grep stack ·           Automatic Reference Counting (ARC) protection: jtool -d -v -arch | grep _objc_release ·           To check if the devic...