CAPEC-120

Double Encoding
Bas
Moyen
Draft
2014-06-23
00h00 +00:00
2022-09-29
00h00 +00:00
Alerte pour un CAPEC
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CAPEC spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CAPEC

The adversary utilizes a repeating of the encoding process for a set of characters (that is, character encoding a character encoding of a character) to obfuscate the payload of a particular request. This may allow the adversary to bypass filters that attempt to detect illegal characters or strings, such as those that might be used in traversal or injection attacks. Filters may be able to catch illegal encoded strings, but may not catch doubly encoded strings. For example, a dot (.), often used in path traversal attacks and therefore often blocked by filters, could be URL encoded as %2E. However, many filters recognize this encoding and would still block the request. In a double encoding, the % in the above URL encoding would be encoded again as %25, resulting in %252E which some filters might not catch, but which could still be interpreted as a dot (.) by interpreters on the target.

Informations du CAPEC

Flux d'exécution

1) Explore

[Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser, an automated tool or by inspecting the application, an attacker records all entry points to the application.

Technique
  • Use a spidering tool to follow and record all links and analyze the web pages to find entry points. Make special note of any links that include parameters in the URL.
  • Use a proxy tool to record all user input entry points visited during a manual traversal of the web application.
  • Use a browser to manually explore the website and analyze how it is constructed. Many browsers' plugins are available to facilitate the analysis or automate the discovery.
  • Manually inspect the application to find entry points.
2) Experiment

[Probe entry points to locate vulnerabilities] Try double-encoding for parts of the input in order to try to get past the filters. For instance, by double encoding certain characters in the URL (e.g. dots and slashes) an adversary may try to get access to restricted resources on the web server or force browse to protected pages (thus subverting the authorization service). An adversary can also attempt other injection style attacks using this attack pattern: command injection, SQL injection, etc.

Technique
  • Try to use double-encoding to bypass validation routines.

Conditions préalables

The target's filters must fail to detect that a character has been doubly encoded but its interpreting engine must still be able to convert a doubly encoded character to an un-encoded character.
The application accepts and decodes URL string request.
The application performs insufficient filtering/canonicalization on the URLs.

Ressources nécessaires

Tools that automate encoding of data can assist the adversary in generating encoded strings.

Atténuations

Assume all input is malicious. Create an allowlist that defines all valid input to the software system based on the requirements specifications. Input that does not match against the allowlist should not be permitted to enter into the system. Test your decoding process against malicious input.
Be aware of the threat of alternative method of data encoding and obfuscation technique such as IP address encoding.
When client input is required from web-based forms, avoid using the "GET" method to submit data, as the method causes the form data to be appended to the URL and is easily manipulated. Instead, use the "POST method whenever possible.
Any security checks should occur after the data has been decoded and validated as correct data format. Do not repeat decoding process, if bad character are left after decoding process, treat the data as suspicious, and fail the validation process.
Refer to the RFCs to safely decode URL.
Regular expression can be used to match safe URL patterns. However, that may discard valid URL requests if the regular expression is too restrictive.
There are tools to scan HTTP requests to the server for valid URL such as URLScan from Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/urlscan.mspx).

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse

CWE-173

Improper Handling of Alternate Encoding
The product does not properly handle when an input uses an alternate encoding that is valid for the control sphere to which the input is being sent.

CWE-172

Encoding Error
The product does not properly encode or decode the data, resulting in unexpected values.

CWE-177

Improper Handling of URL Encoding (Hex Encoding)
The product does not properly handle when all or part of an input has been URL encoded.

CWE-181

Incorrect Behavior Order: Validate Before Filter
The product validates data before it has been filtered, which prevents the product from detecting data that becomes invalid after the filtering step.

CWE-183

Permissive List of Allowed Inputs
The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are explicitly allowed by policy because the inputs are assumed to be safe, but the list is too permissive - that is, it allows an input that is unsafe, leading to resultant weaknesses.

CWE-184

Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs
The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are not allowed by policy or otherwise require other action to neutralize before additional processing takes place, but the list is incomplete.

CWE-74

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a command, data structure, or record using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify how it is parsed or interpreted when it is sent to a downstream component.

CWE-20

Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

CWE-697

Incorrect Comparison
The product compares two entities in a security-relevant context, but the comparison is incorrect, which may lead to resultant weaknesses.

CWE-692

Incomplete Denylist to Cross-Site Scripting
The product uses a denylist-based protection mechanism to defend against XSS attacks, but the denylist is incomplete, allowing XSS variants to succeed.

Soumission

Nom Organisation Date Date de publication
CAPEC Content Team The MITRE Corporation 2014-06-23 +00:00

Modifications

Nom Organisation Date Commentaire
CAPEC Content Team The MITRE Corporation 2017-08-04 +00:00 Updated Attack_Phases, Description Summary, Resources_Required
CAPEC Content Team The MITRE Corporation 2018-07-31 +00:00 Updated Activation_Zone, Attack_Phases, Attack_Prerequisites, Description Summary, Examples-Instances, Injection_Vector, Payload, Payload_Activation_Impact, Related_Weaknesses, Solutions_and_Mitigations, Typical_Likelihood_of_Exploit
CAPEC Content Team The MITRE Corporation 2020-07-30 +00:00 Updated Mitigations
CAPEC Content Team The MITRE Corporation 2021-06-24 +00:00 Updated Related_Weaknesses
CAPEC Content Team The MITRE Corporation 2022-09-29 +00:00 Updated Example_Instances