There is a page in my company that contains only a GridView with some data
Today i saw this text in one of the cells (i changed a little to show to you)
[div style="display:none"]discount online BLABLABLA[a href="http://www.[randonURL].net/page/[randompage].aspx"]click[/a] new prescription coupon[/div]
I searched this text and somehow, someone inserted this in my database
How he made that?...what i can do about it?
It sounds like a classic case of SQL injection. There are a number of things you can do to prevent it. Here are a few. I would suggest reading up on it though.
On your database methods always use parameterized SQL, stored procedures or an ORM. Never use dynamic SQL. In the rare case you have to, there are ways of protecting that too. But that is a fairly long discussion.
Always encode user input. For JavaScript use the encodeURI() method. On the server side use the HtmlDecode() method.
Never show error details in the public domain. This gives hackers clues they can use.
Related
I have this textbox in asp.net webform page used to enter a city. On entering some text it provides suggestions just like facebook does of matching results.
I tried these two methods to implement this.
I first used onTextChanged event and AJAX and found out it only works when the textbox loses focus. I wanted a solution to work as you type. Advantage of using this was that I could use a database and it would be fast, because no xml files will be transferred in the process.
2.I used ajax, clientside using js. But the problem is the xml containing cities, there states, country is a massive 30MB file. So, it was impossible to use it, so thought of making 26 small xml files of each alphabet out of that big one but still they would be big enough to actually use. So, now I am planning to use 26*26 files containing the cities with same first two alphabets but I think its ineffective way to do what I want.
Is there any other efficient way of accomplishing it?
The best way would be to use a database, if I could.
You need to use onkeypress and/or onkeyup events instead.
Did you know that there are plug-and-play auto-complete components out there that are free? For example http://jqueryui.com/demos/autocomplete/
Use JSON! It's much more compact. You'll probably save 30-40% on the size of that data.
Did you know that you don't need to pass the whole data set for that to work? You can have it live on the server (e.g. in the database, or cached on the webserver for faster access and less db traffic), and have clients only pull small set of data at a time, based on characters that they type. That JQuery UI AutoComplete supports that feature.
If you cannot use JQuery and JQuery UI (not wanting would be an unacceptable answer), then I'm pretty sure there are other free alternatives, including this one: http://www.asp.net/ajaxLibrary/AjaxControlToolkitSampleSite/AutoComplete/AutoComplete.aspx
My colleagues and I have been debating how to best protect ourselves
from XSS attacks but still preserve HTML characters that get entered
into fields in our software.
To me, the ideal solution is to accept the data (turn off ASP .NET
request validation) as the user enters it, throw it in the database
exactly as they entered it. Then, whenever you display the data on the
web, HTML-encode it. The problem with this approach is that there's a
high likelihood that a developer somewhere someday will forget to
HTML-encode the display of a value somewhere. Bam! XSS vulnerability.
Another solution that was proposed was to turn request validation off
and strip out any HTML users enter before it is stored in the database
using a regex. Devs will still have to HTML-encode things for display,
but since you've stripped out any HTML tags, even if a dev forgets, we
think it would be safe. The drawback to this is that users can't enter
HTML tags into descriptions and fields and things, even if they
explicitly want to, or they may accidentally paste in an email address
surrounded by < > and the regex doesn't pick it up...whatever. It
screws with the data, and it's not ideal.
The other issue we have to keep in mind is that the system has been
built in the fear of commitment to any one strategy around this. And
at one point, some devs wrote some pages to HTML encode data before it
gets entered into the database. So some data may be already HTML
encoded in the database, some data is not - it's a mess. We can't
really trust any data that comes from the database as safe for display
in a browser.
My question is: What would be the ideal solution if you were
building an ASP .NET web app from the ground up, and what would be a good
approach for us, given our situation?
Assuming you go ahead and store the HTML directly in the database, in ASP.NET/MVC Razor, HTML-encoding is done automatically, so your negligent developer would have to really go above and beyond the call of duty to introduce the XSS. With standard webforms (or the webform view engine), you can force developers to use the <%: syntax, which will accomplish the same thing. (albeit with more risk that the developer will be negligent)
Furthermore, you could consider only selectively disabling request validation. Do you really need to support it for every request? The vast majority of requests, presumably, would not need to preserve (or allow) the HTML.
Using a regex to strip html is fairly easy to defeat and very difficult to get correct. If you want to clean HTML input it's better to use an actual parser to enforce strict XML compliance.
What I would do in this situation is store two fields in the database: clean and raw for the data. When the user wants to edit their content, you send them the raw data. When they submit changes, you sanitize it and store it in the clean field. Developers then only ever use the clean field when outputting the content to the page. I would even go so far as to name the raw field dangerousRawContent so it's obvious that care must be taken when referencing that field.
The added benefit of this technique is that you can re-sanitize the raw data with improved parsers at a later date without every loosing the originally intended content.
The Problem
In the stack that we re-use between projects, we are putting a little bit too much data in the session for passing data between pages. This was good in theory because it prevents tampering, replay attacks, and so on, but it creates as many problems as it solves.
Session loss itself is an issue, although it's mostly handled by implementing Session State Server (or by using SQL Server). More importantly, it's tricky to make the back button work correctly, and it's also extra work to create a situation where a user can, say, open the same screen in three tabs to work on different records.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
There are workarounds for most of these issues, but as I grind away, all this friction gives me the feeling that passing data between pages using session is the wrong direction.
What I really want to do here is come up with a best practice that my shop can use all the time for passing data between pages, and then, for new apps, replace key parts of our stack that currently rely on Session.
It would also be nice if the final solution did not result in mountains of boilerplate plumbing code.
Proposed Solutions
Session
As mentioned above, leaning heavily on Session seems like a good idea, but it breaks the back button and causes some other problems.
There may be ways to get around all the problems, but it seems like a lot of extra work.
One thing that's very nice about using session is the fact that tampering is just not an issue. Compared to passing everything via the unencrypted QueryString, you end up writing much less guard code.
Cross-Page Posting
In truth I've barely considered this option. I have a problem with how tightly coupled it makes the pages -- if I start doing PreviousPage.FindControl("SomeTextBox"), that seems like a maintenance problem if I ever want to get to this page from another page that maybe does not have a control called SomeTextBox.
It seems limited in other ways as well. Maybe I want to get to the page via a link, for instance.
QueryString
I'm currently leaning towards this strategy, like in the olden days. But I probably want my QueryString to be encrypted to make it harder to tamper with, and I would like to handle the problem of replay attacks as well.
On 4 guys from Rolla, there's an article about this.
However, it should be possible to create an HttpModule that takes care of all this and removes all the encryption sausage-making from the page. Sure enough, Mads Kristensen has an article where he released one. However, the comments make it sound like it has problems with extremely common scenarios.
Other Options
Of course this is not an exaustive look at the options, but rather the main options I'm considering. This link contains a more complete list. The ones I didn't mention such as Cookies and the Cache not appropriate for the purpose of passing data between pages.
In Closing...
So, how are you handling the problem of passing data between pages? What hidden gotchas did you have to work around, and are there any pre-existing tools around this that solve them all flawlessly? Do you feel like you've got a solution that you're completely happy with?
Thanks in advance!
Update: Just in case I'm not being clear enough, by 'passing data between pages' I'm talking about, for instance, passing a CustomerID key from a CustomerSearch.aspx page to Customers.aspx, where the Customer will be opened and editing can occur.
First, the problems with which you are dealing relate to handling state in a state-less environment. The struggles you are having are not new and it is probably one of the things that makes web development harder than windows development or the development of an executable.
With respect to web development, you have five choices, as far as I'm aware, for handling user-specific state which can all be used in combination with each other. You will find that no one solution works for everything. Instead, you need to determine when to use each solution:
Query string - Query strings are good for passing pointers to data (e.g. primary key values) or state values. Query strings by themselves should not be assumed to be secure even if encrypted because of replay. In addition, some browsers have a limit on the length of the url. However, query strings have some advantages such as that they can be bookmarked and emailed to people and are inherently stateless if not used with anything else.
Cookies - Cookies are good for storing very tiny amounts of information for a particular user. The problem is that cookies also have a size limitation after which it will simply truncate the data so you have to be careful with putting custom data in a cookie. In addition, users can kill cookies or stop their use (although that would prevent use of standard Session as well). Similar to query strings, cookies are better, IMO, for pointers to data than for the data itself unless the data is tiny.
Form data - Form data can take quite a bit of information however at the cost of post times and in some cases reload times. ASP.NET's ViewState uses hidden form variables to maintain information. Passing data between pages using something like ViewState has the advantage of working nicer with the back button but can easily create ginormous pages which slow down the experience for the user. In general, ASP.NET model does not work on cross page posting (although it is possible) but instead works on posts back to the same page and from there navigating to the next page.
Session - Session is good for information that relates to a process with which the user is progressing or for general settings. You can store quite a bit of information into session at the cost of server memory or load times from the databases. Conceptually, Session works by loading the entire wad of data for the user all at once either from memory or from a state server. That means that if you have a very large set of data you probably do not want to put it into session. Session can create some back button problems which must be weighed against what the user is actually trying to accomplish. In general you will find that the back button can be the bane of the web developer.
Database - The last solution (which again can be used in combination with others) is that you store the information in the database in its appropriate schema with a column that indicates the state of the item. For example, if you were handling the creation of an order, you could store the order in the Order table with a "state" column that determines whether it was a real order or not. You would store the order identifier in the query string or session. The web site would continue to write data into the table to update the various parts and child items until eventually the user is able to declare that they are done and the order's state is marked as being a real order. This can complicate reports and queries in that they all need to differentiate "real" items from ones that are in process.
One of the items mentioned in your later link was Application Cache. I wouldn't consider this to be user-specific since it is application wide. (It can obviously be shoe-horned into being user-specific but I wouldn't recommend that either). I've never played with storing data in the HttpContext outside of passing it to a handler or module but I'd be skeptical that it was any different than the above mentioned solutions.
In general, there is no one solution to rule them all. The best approach is to assume on each page that the user could have navigated to that page from anywhere (as opposed to assuming they got there by using a link on another page). If you do that, back button issues become easier to handle (although still a pain). In my development, I use the first four extensively and on occasion resort to the last solution when the need calls for it.
Alright, so I want to preface my answer with this; Thomas clearly has the most accurate and comprehensive answer so far for people starting fresh. This answer isn't in the same vein at all. My answer is coming from a "business developer's" standpoint. As we all know too well; sometimes it's just not feasible to spend money re-writing something that already exists and "works"... at least not all in one shot. Sometimes it's best to implement a solution which will let you migrate to a better alternative over time.
The only thing I'd say Thomas is missing is; client-side javascript state. Where I work we've found customers are coming to expect "Web 2.0"-type applications more and more. We've also found these sorts of applications typically result in much higher user satisfaction. With a little practice, and the help of some really great javascript libraries like jQuery (we've even started using GWT and found it to be AWESOME) communicating with JSON-based REST services implemented in WCF can be trivial. This approach also provides a very nice way to start moving towards a SOA-based architecture, and clean separation of UI and business logic.
But I digress.
It sounds to me as though you already have an application, and you've already stretched the limits of ASP.NET's built-in session state management. So... here's my suggestion (assuming you've already tried ASP.NET's out-of-process session management, which scales signifigantly better than the in-process/on-box session management, and it sounds like you have because you mentioned it); NCache.
NCache provides you with a "drop-in" replacement for ASP.NET's session management options. It's super easy to implement, and could "band-aid" your application more than well enough to get you through - without any significant investment in refactoring your existing codebase immediately.
You can use the extra time and money to start reducing your technical debt by focusing new development on things with immediate business-value - using a new approach (such as any of the alternatives offered in the other answers, or mine).
Just my thoughts.
Several months later, I thought I would update this question with the technique I ended up going with, since it has worked out so well.
After playing with more involved session state handling (which resulted in a lot of broken back buttons and so on) I ended up rolling my own code to handle encrypted QueryStrings. It's been a huge win -- all of my problem scenarios (back button, multiple tabs open at the same time, lost session state, etc) are solved and the complexity is minimal since the usage is very familiar.
This is still not a magic bullet for everything but I think it's good for about 90% of the scenarios you run into.
Details
I built a class called CorePage that inherits from Page. It has methods called SecureRequest and SecureRedirect.
So you might call:
SecureRedirect(String.Format("Orders.aspx?ClientID={0}&OrderID={1}, ClientID, OrderID)
CorePage parses out the QueryString and encrypts it into a QueryString variable called CoreSecure. So the actual request looks like this:
Orders.aspx?CoreSecure=1IHXaPzUCYrdmWPkkkuThEes%2fIs4l6grKaznFGAeDDI%3d
If available, the currently logged in UserID is added to the encryption key, so replay attacks are not as much of a problem.
From there, you can call:
X = SecureRequest("ClientID")
Conclusion
Everything works seamlessly, using familiar syntax.
Over the last several months I've also adapted this code to work with edge cases, such as hyperlinks that trigger a download - sometimes you need to generate a hyperlink on the client that has a secure QueryString. That works really well.
Let me know if you would like to see this code and I will put it up somewhere.
One last thought: it's weird to accept my own answer over some of the very thoughtful posts other people put on here, but this really does seem to be the ultimate answer to my problem. Thanks to everyone who helped get me there.
After going through all the above scenarios and answers and this link Data pasing methods My final advice would be :
COOKIES for:
ENCRYPT[userId's]
ENCRYPT[productId]
ENCRYPT[xyzIds..]
ENCRYPT[etc..]
DATABASE for:
datasets BY COOKIE ID
datatables BY COOKIE ID
all other large chunks BY COOKIE ID
My advise also depends on the below statistics and this link details Data pasing methods :
I would never do this. I have never had any issues storing all session data in the database, loading it based on the users cookie. It's a session as far as anything is concerned, but I maintain control over it. Don't give up control of your session data to your web server...
With a little work, you can support sub sessions, and allow multi-tasking in different tabs/windows.
As a starting point, I find using the critical data elements, such as a Customer ID, best put into the query string for processing. You can easily track/filter bad data coming off of these elements, and it also allows for some integration with e-mail or other related sites/applications.
In a previous application, the only way to view an employee or a request record involving them was to log into the application, do a search for the employee or do a search for recent records to find the record in question. This became problematic and a big time sink when somebody from a related department needed to do a simple view on records for auditing purposes.
In the rewrite, I made both the employee Id, and request Ids available through a basic URL of "ViewEmployee.aspx?Id=XXX" and "ViewRequest.aspx?Id=XXX". The application was setup to A) filter out bad Ids and B) authenticate and authorize the user before allowing them to these pages. What this allowed the primarily application users to do was to send simple e-mails to the auditors with a URL in the e-mail. When they were in a big hurry, they were in their bulk processing time, they were able to simply click down a list of URLs and do the appropriate processing.
Other session related data, such as modification dates and maintaining the "state" of the user's interaction with the application gets a little more complex, but hopefully this provides a starting poing for you.
I'm sorry for maybe making such a basic question but in ASP.NET websites what does the __VIEWSTATE input field represent?
Also, is there any way to compute it's value (based on the values of other form fields)?
EDIT
I understand that __VIEWSTATE, as the name suggests, maintains the values of form field values in webpages however what I'm interested in knowing is how this state (the string) is generated. If I base64_decode any __VIEWSTATE string all I see is a bunch of cryptic HTML.
Is there any way to better understand what exactly is being encoded? I've searched on past questions and I've found some tools that can do this like this one, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to work.
The reason I'm asking this is because I've access to a web service API that gives me most of the values I need to work with. However I also need an additional field that is only available on the last stage of the form. I already contacted the web service provider but unfortunately and they're not going to update their API so soon. I was hoping I could prefill the form initial values using the web service data and then calculate the __VIEWSTATE to access the last field that shows up on the last stage of the form, it would make the whole process a lot faster.
Not sure if I made myself clear enough though...
Paul Wilson has a very good article: ViewState: All You Wanted to Know
VIEWSTATE can be deserialized with the LosFormatter class.
A quick Google search answers the question:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms972976.aspx
First sentence:
Microsoft® ASP.NET view state, in a
nutshell, is the technique used by an
ASP.NET Web page to persist changes to
the state of a Web Form across
postbacks.
If you really want to understand it well, see Dave Reed's article about ViewState.
Do take a look at the biter script posted at http://forums.techarena.in/windows-software/1329157.htm.
That script shows how to set up and use __ViewState and other .NET variables.
That script logs into a .NET site, and gets stock values, without going thru a browser. Instead of user doing it manually, the script does it programmatically.
What do you mean by compute it's value?
Assume that it is a compressed (actually Base64 encoded) pair of your form fields/values in text form, which gets serialized into server side objects for you to work with.
The easiest way of doing this in Razor is putting this on a view:
#{
throw new Exception();
}
I'm a former classic ASP programmer and sometimes PHP programmer writing my first ASP.NET application. I'm loving the much-improved ADO.NET functions, but I'm feeling the need to write a database class. Partly I want to consolidate the code that actually interacts with the database, and partly I want to reduce what feels like repetition.
A simple database class is not hard to do, but I'm using parameterized queries as one of my security measures. I'm struggling with how to incorporate this into a class. I wrote a function to return the datatype of a column in the database by passing in the table and column name, but I can't think of a robust way to obtain the table and column name from the SQL query.
My design for the class was to have a Query() function for selecting, and an Execute() function for insert/update/delete. (Not opposed to having more public functions, but didn't want to get ahead of myself.) Both functions take a SQL string and a SortedList for the parameters. It might be possible to get the column name by finding the parameter name in the SQL string and looking in front of the equal sign. Likewise, it should be fairly simple to get the table name when the query is insert, update, or delete, because you only work with one table at a time. The big concern is selecting, because there could be one or more joins, inner selects, etc.
Am I headed in the wrong direction? Anything I'm not thinking of that could make my life easier or more difficult? Anybody written a class for this in any language that could offer some advice?
Don't reinvent the wheel. Look into nHibernate or LINQToSQL (or LINQToEntities) for your ORM needs.
Would second the call to find a tried and tested wheel that works for you, especially if this is your first foray into aspnet... there will be plenty else to keep you busy.
Would add a suggestion for SubSonic, which is perhaps a little lighter than nHibernate, but it really depends on the nature of your project, they are both great tools, and both have saved me months of work over the last few years.
I think since this is your first experience in ASP.NET you would be well advised to look into Linq to SQL. Do some tutorials so you get a feel for how it works before you try to code any Linq queries.
The only reasons I can think of to NOT use Linq to SQL in your case would be if you are not using SQL Server (or need to support other DBs either now or in future), or you cannot use .NET 3.5 runtime for some reason.
Good luck
It sounds to me like your "simple database class" is hiding too many details from the classes that need to use it.
I've written classes that contain a SqlCeEngine and expose methods like "LookupDescription(String Code)" ... I think that kind of design is something you should be looking into. And, consider looking into LINQ. It has a lot to offer.