Détail du CWE-86

CWE-86

Improper Neutralization of Invalid Characters in Identifiers in Web Pages
Draft
2006-07-19
00h00 +00:00
2023-06-29
00h00 +00:00
Notifications pour un CWE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CWE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Nom: Improper Neutralization of Invalid Characters in Identifiers in Web Pages

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes invalid characters or byte sequences in the middle of tag names, URI schemes, and other identifiers.

Description du CWE

Some web browsers may remove these sequences, resulting in output that may have unintended control implications. For example, the product may attempt to remove a "javascript:" URI scheme, but a "java%00script:" URI may bypass this check and still be rendered as active javascript by some browsers, allowing XSS or other attacks.

Informations générales

Modes d'introduction

Implementation

Plateformes applicables

Langue

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined)

Conséquences courantes

Portée Impact Probabilité
Confidentiality
Integrity
Availability
Read Application Data, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands

Exemples observés

Références Description

CVE-2004-0595

XSS filter doesn't filter null characters before looking for dangerous tags, which are ignored by web browsers. Multiple Interpretation Error (MIE) and validate-before-cleanse.

Mesures d’atténuation potentielles

Phases : Implementation

Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.

The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.


Phases : Implementation
To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XMLHTTPRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.

Méthodes de détection

Automated Static Analysis

Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)
Efficacité : High

Notes de cartographie des vulnérabilités

Justification : This CWE entry is at the Variant level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.
Commentaire : Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.

Modèles d'attaque associés

CAPEC-ID Nom du modèle d'attaque
CAPEC-247 XSS Using Invalid Characters
An adversary inserts invalid characters in identifiers to bypass application filtering of input. Filters may not scan beyond invalid characters but during later stages of processing content that follows these invalid characters may still be processed. This allows the adversary to sneak prohibited commands past filters and perform normally prohibited operations. Invalid characters may include null, carriage return, line feed or tab in an identifier. Successful bypassing of the filter can result in a XSS attack, resulting in the disclosure of web cookies or possibly other results.
CAPEC-73 User-Controlled Filename
An attack of this type involves an adversary inserting malicious characters (such as a XSS redirection) into a filename, directly or indirectly that is then used by the target software to generate HTML text or other potentially executable content. Many websites rely on user-generated content and dynamically build resources like files, filenames, and URL links directly from user supplied data. In this attack pattern, the attacker uploads code that can execute in the client browser and/or redirect the client browser to a site that the attacker owns. All XSS attack payload variants can be used to pass and exploit these vulnerabilities.
CAPEC-85 AJAX Footprinting
This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS.

Soumission

Nom Organisation Date Date de publication Version
PLOVER 2006-07-19 +00:00 2006-07-19 +00:00 Draft 3

Modifications

Nom Organisation Date Commentaire
Eric Dalci Cigital 2008-07-01 +00:00 updated Time_of_Introduction
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-09-08 +00:00 updated Description, Name, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2009-10-29 +00:00 updated Description, Other_Notes
CWE Content Team MITRE 2010-04-05 +00:00 updated Description, Name, Related_Attack_Patterns
CWE Content Team MITRE 2010-06-21 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-06-01 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-05-11 +00:00 updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-10-30 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-07-30 +00:00 updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2017-05-03 +00:00 updated Related_Attack_Patterns
CWE Content Team MITRE 2017-11-08 +00:00 updated Applicable_Platforms
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-02-24 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-01-31 +00:00 updated Description
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-04-27 +00:00 updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-06-29 +00:00 updated Mapping_Notes