Let's say that a page is just printing the value of the HTTP 'referer' header with no escaping. So the page is vulnerable to an XSS attack, i.e. an attacker can craft a GET request with a referer header containing something like <script>alert('xss');</script>.
But how can you actually use this to attack a target? How can the attacker make the target issue that specific request with that specific header?
This sounds like a standard reflected XSS attack.
In reflected XSS attacks, the attacker needs the victim to visit some site which in some way is under the attacker's control. Even if this is just a forum where an attacker can post a link in the hope somebody will follow it.
In the case of a reflected XSS attack with the referer header, then the attacker could redirect the user from the forum to a page on the attacker's domain.
e.g.
http://evil.example.com/?<script>alert(123)>
This page in turn redirects to the following target page in a way that preserves referer.
http://victim.example.org/vulnerable_xss_page.php
Because it is showing the referer header on this page without the proper escaping, http://evil.example.com/?<script>alert(123)> gets output within the HTML source, executing the alert. Note this works in Internet Explorer only.
Other browsers will automatically encode the URL rendering
%3cscript%3ealert%28123%29%3c/script%3e
instead which is safe.
I can think of a few different attacks, maybe there are more which then others will hopefully add. :)
If your XSS is just some header value reflected in the response unencoded, I would say that's less of a risk compared to stored. There may be factors to consider though. For example if it's a header that the browser adds and can be set in the browser (like the user agent), an attacker may get access to a client computer, change the user agent, and then let a normal user use the website, now with the attacker's javascript injected. Another example that comes to mind is a website may display the url that redirected you there (referer) - in this case the attacker only has to link to the vulnerable application from his carefully crafted url. These are kind of edge cases though.
If it's stored, that's more straightforward. Consider an application that logs user access with all request headers, and let's suppose there is an internal application for admins that they use to inspect logs. If this log viewer application is web based and vulnerable, any javascript from any request header could be run in the admin context. Obviously this is just one example, it doesn't need to be blind of course.
Cache poisoning may also help with exploiting a header XSS.
Another thing I can think of is browser plugins. Flash is less prevalent now (thankfully), but with different versions of Flash you could set different request headers on your requests. What exactly you can and cannot set is a mess and very confusing across Flash plugin versions.
So there are several attacks, and it is necessary to treat all headers as user input and encode them accordingly.
Exploitation of xss at referrer header is almost like a traditional reflected xss, Just an additional point to make is "Attacker's website redirects to victim website and hence referrer header with required javascript will be appended to the victim website request".
Here One essential point that needs to be discussed is Why only with IE one can exploit this vulnerability why not with other browsers?
Traditional answer for this question is 'Chrome and firefox automatically encodes URL parameters and hence XSS is not possible..' But interesting thing here is when we have n number of bypasses for traditional xss bypasses. why can't we have bypasses for this scenario.
Yes.. We can bypass with following payload which is same way to bypass HTML validation in traditional payload.
http://evil.example.com/?alert(1)//cctixn1f .
Here the response could be something like this:
The link on the
referring
page seems to be wrong or outdated.
Response End
If victim clicks on referring page, alert will be generated..
Bottomline: Not just only IE, XSS can be possible even in Mozilla and Firefox when referrer is being used as part of href tag..
Related
I was just reading https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Set-Cookie:
Lax: The cookie is not sent on cross-site requests, such as calls to
load images or frames, but is sent when a user is navigating to the
origin site from an external site (e.g. if following a link). This is
the default behavior if the SameSite attribute is not specified.
If this is the default, then doesn't this mean CSRF attacks can't happen?
If someone loads a malicious website that runs Javascript in the background to make a simple POST request to a website the victim is currently logged into, then the default behaviour is that the cookie won't be sent, right?
Also, why would someone choose to use Strict over Lax?
Why would you ever want to prevent a user's browser sending a cookie to the origin website when navigating to that website, which is what Strict does?
CSRF attacks are still possible when SameSite is Lax. It prevents the cross-site POST attack you mentioned, but if a website triggers an unsafe operation with a GET request then it would still be possible. For example, many sites currently trigger a logout with a GET request, so it would be trivial for an attacker to log a user out of their session.
The standard addresses this directly:
Lax enforcement provides reasonable defense in depth against CSRF
attacks that rely on unsafe HTTP methods (like "POST"), but does not
offer a robust defense against CSRF as a general category of attack:
Attackers can still pop up new windows or trigger top-level
navigations in order to create a "same-site" request (as
described in section 5.2.1), which is only a speedbump along the
road to exploitation.
Features like <link rel='prerender'> can be
exploited to create "same-site" requests without the risk of user
detection.
Given that, the reason why someone would use Strict is straightforward: it prevents a broader class of CSRF attacks. There's a tradeoff, of course, since it prevents some ways of using your site, but if those use cases aren't important to you then the tradeoff might be justified.
I develop software which stores files in directories with random names to prevent unauthorized users to download a file.
The first thing we need about this is to store them in a separate top-level domain (to prevent cookie theft).
The second danger is HTTP referer which may reveal the name of the secret directory.
My experiments with Chrome browser shows that HTTP referer is sent only when I click a link in my (secret) file. So the trouble is limited only to files which may contain links (in Chrome HTML and PDF). Can I rely on this behavior (not sending the referer is the next page is opened not from a current (secret) page link but with some other method such as entering the URL directly) for all browsers?
So the problem was limited only to HTML and PDF files. But it is not a complete security solution.
I suspect that we can fully solve this problem by adding Content-Disposition: attachment when serving all our secret files. Will it prevent the HTTP referer?
Also note that I am going to use HTTPS for a man-in-the-middle not to be able to download our secret files.
You can use the Referrer-Policy header to try to control referer behaviour. Please take note that this requires clients to implement this.
Instead of trying to conceal the file location, may I suggest you implement proper authentication and authorization handling?
I agree that Referrer-Policy is your best first step, but as DaSourcerer notes, it is not universally implemented on browsers you may support.
A fully server-side solution is as follows:
User connects to .../<secret>
Server generates a one-time token and redirects to .../<token>
Server provides document and invalidate token
Now the referer will point to .../<token>, which is no longer valid. This has usability trade-offs, however:
Reloading the page will not work (though you may be able to address this with a cookie or session)
Users cannot share URL from URL bar, since it's technically invalid (in some cases that could be a minor benefit)
You may be able to get the same basic benefits without the usability trade-offs by doing the same thing with an IFRAME rather than redirecting. I'm not certain how IFRAME influences Referer.
This entire solution is basically just Referer masking done proactively. If you can rewrite the links in the document, then you could instead use Referer masking on the way out. (i.e. rewrite all the links so that they point to https://yoursite.com/redirect/....) Since you mention PDF, I'm assuming that this would be challenging (or that you otherwise do not want to rewrite the document).
I have a stylesheet that loads images from an external domain and I need it to load from https:// from secure order pages and http:// from other pages, based on the current URL. I found that starting the URL with a double slash inherits the current protocol. Do all browsers support this technique?
HTML ex:
<img src="//cdn.domain.example/logo.png" />
CSS ex:
.class { background: url(//cdn.domain.example/logo.png); }
If the browser supports RFC 1808 Section 4, RFC 2396 Section 5.2, or RFC 3986 Section 5.2, then it will indeed use the page URL's scheme for references that begin with "//".
When used on a link or #import, IE7/IE8 will download the file twice per http://paulirish.com/2010/the-protocol-relative-url/
Update from 2014:
Now that SSL is encouraged for everyone and doesn’t have performance concerns, this technique is now an anti-pattern. If the asset you need is available on SSL, then always use the https:// asset.
One downside occurs if your URLs are viewed outside the context of a web page. For example, an email message sitting in an email client (say, Outlook) effectively has no URL, and when you're viewing a message containing a protocol-relative URL, there is no obvious protocol context at all (the message itself is independent of the protocol used to fetch it, whether it's POP3, IMAP, Exchange, uucp or whatever) so the URL has no protocol to be relative to. I've not investigated compatibility with email clients to see what they do when presented with a missing protocol handler - I'm guessing that most will take a guess at http. Apple Mail refuses to let you enter a URL without a protocol. It's analogous to the way that relative URLs do not work in email because of a similarly missing context.
Similar problems could occur in other non-HTTP contexts such as in tweets, SMS messages, Word documents etc.
The more general explanation is that anonymous protocol URLs cannot work in isolation; there must be a relevant context. In a typical web page it's thus fine to pull in a script library that way, but any external links should always specify a protocol. I did try one simple test: //stackoverflow.com maps to file:///stackoverflow.com in all browsers I tried it in, so they really don't work by themselves.
The reason could be to provide portable web pages. If the outer page is not transported encrypted (http), why should the linked scripts be encrypted? This seems to be an unnecessary performance loss. In case, the outer page is securely transported encrypted (https), then the linked content should be encrypted, too. If the page is encrypted, the linked content not, IE seems to issue a Mixed Content warning. The reason is that an attacker can manipulate the scripts on the way. See http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/MixedContent/Default.html?o=1 for a longer discussion.
The HTTPS Everywhere campaign from the EFF suggests to use https whenever possible. We have the server capacity these days to serve web pages always encrypted.
Just for completeness. This was mentioned in another thread:
The "two forward slashes" are a common shorthand for "whatever protocol is being used right now"
if (plain http environment) {
use 'http://example.com/my-resource.js'
} else {
use 'https://example.com/my-resource.js'
}
Please check the full thread.
It seems to be a pretty common technique now. There is no downside, it only helps to unify the protocol for all assets on the page so should be used wherever possible.
A page we have is visited by users from two domains. lets call them x.com and y.com
I want some of the code to only display when the user visits from y.com- how do i do this in the same vbscript file? Or do i HAVE to have separate files?
i was thinking something like
if request.SOMETHING.contains("x") then etc
Try Request.ServerVariables("HTTP_REFERER").
You'll notice that REFERER is misspelled; that's because HTTP_REFERER was set in stone in RFC 1945 before anyone caught the spelling error.
More info
In addition to checking the referer as others have suggested you could also while calling the page put a value in the url indicating where you have come from (assuming you have access to the pages you are linking from).
This is more easy for a malicious or just curious user to mess with than the http referrer so in some ways it is less reliable. However you should bear in mind that the http referrer isn't a guaranteed solution anyway (a browser might not send it, security programs might strip out the header, etc.) and that any user who manually edits things in the querystring that they shouldn't be playing with has no grounds for complaint if things stop working. As long as it won't be a security hole it should be fine. And if changing the value is a security hole you shouldn't use the referrer either since that can be easily modified by those with a mind to.
request.servervariables("HTTP_REFERER")
What is the point of doing this?
I want a reason why it's a good idea to send a person back to where they came from if the referrer is outside of the domain. I want to know why a handful of websites out there insist that this is good practice. It's easily exploitable, easily bypassed by anyone who's logging in with malicious intent, and just glares in my face as a useless "security" measure. I don't like to have my biased opinions on things without other input, so explain this one to me.
The request headers are only as trustworthy as your client, why would you use them as a means of validation?
There are three reasons why someone might want to do this. Checking the referer is a method of CSRF Prevention. A site may not want people to link to sensitive content and thus use this to bounce the browser back. It may also be to prevent spiders from accessing content that the publisher wishes to restrict.
I agree it is easy to bypass this referer restriction on your own browser using something like TamperData. It should also be noted that the browser's http request will not contain a referer if your coming from an https:// page going to an http:// page.