In some of my books that I've read, it is stated that it is good to hide yellow screens of death (obviously), but not only for the reason in that it is quite informal to users, but also because hackers can use the information to hack your website.
My question is this. How can a hacker use this information? How does a call stack of basic operations of the .NET call stack help hackers?
I attached a yellow screen of death that I encountered on one of the websites that I created a long time ago and it sparked my interest.
(The error is that it fails when attempting to cast a query string parameter to an int. Yea, I know its bad code, I wrote it many years ago ;)
If you're writing secure code, the YSOD shouldn't provide a hacker with the ability to hack your application. If however, your code is insecure, then the YSOD could provide the attacker with essential information to allow them to carry out their attack.
Say, for example, you have written your own forum software. You have put in lots of validation for when the user writes posts to prevent XSS attacks and such, but your validation is faulty. If a hacker can bring up the YSOD when they make a post, the stack trace shown could potentially show them the cracks in your validation and exploit them to create XSS attacks or obtain member details or passwords and such.
The YSOD on it's own is no threat, but to a hacker, it can be a very useful way of finding flaws in your application's security.
There are several different ways this could compromise your application... but most of them would only make it easier for an attack... the vulnerability would probably already have to be there. For example, you could easily reveal a hard-coded password or salt, or reveal a line of code accepting user input without properly sterilizing it.
As mentioned by others YSOD itself is not necessarily always helpful to hacker but assume on your Line 13: in your code above you had your hard-coded Connection string or an inline sql query.
I now know from your YSOD that the "id" meant in your querysting is actually artId and not any randorm id number which may be of some use to hacker.
Also if hacker was able to get more than one different YSOD, it might reveal more info as a whole and sufficient enough to damage your app.
Sometime back MS reported a security vulnerability with ASP.NET where the workaround provided was to enable CustomErrors and hide from user the error-code and any paricular error related detail.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that an attacker would now have good reason to believe that you're using a MySql database (which they wouldn't be likely to guess about an ASP.NET app otherwise), helping them to narrow the range of potential attacks. No sense in making their job easier than it has to be.
Related
Thanks to everyone who commented or posted an answer! I've kept my original question and update below for completeness.
[Feb 16, 2011 - Update 2] As some people point out - my question should have been: Given a standard asp.net 4 form, if I don't have any server side validation, what types of malicious attacks am I susceptible to?
Here is my take away on this issue.
If data isn't sensitive (comments on a page) - from an asp.net security standpoint, following standard best practices (SqlParameters, request validation enabled, etc) will protect you from malicious attacks.
For sensitive data/applications - it's up to you to decide what type of server side validation is appropriate for your application. You need to think the end to end solution (webservices, other systems, etc). You can view a number of suggestions below - whitelist validation, etc.
If you are using ajax (xhr requests) to post user input you need to reproduce the protection from the other bullets in your code on the server. Again, lots of solutions below – like ensuring that the data does not contain any html/code, etc. (side note: the .net framework requestValidationMode="4.0" does afford some protection in this regard - but I can't speak to how complete a solution it is)
Please feel free to continue to comment...if any of the above is incorrect please let me know. Thanks!
[Feb 3, 2011 - Update 1] I want to thank everyone for their answers! Perhaps I should ask the reverse question:
Assume a simple asp.net 4.0 web form (formview + datasource with request validation enabled) that allows logged in users to post comments to a public page (comments stored in sql server db table). What type of data validation or cleansing should I perform on the new "comments" on the server side?
[Jan 19, 2011 - Original Question] Our asp.net 4 website has a few forms where users can submit data and we use jquery validate on the client side. Users have to be logged in with a valid account to access these forms.
I understand that our client side validation rules could easily be bypassed and clients could post data without required fields, etc. This doesn’t concern me very much - users have to be logged in and I don’t consider our data very “sensitive” nor would I say any of our validation is “critical”. The input data is written to the database using SqlParameters (to defend against sql injection) and we depend on asp.net request validation to defend against potentially dangerous html input.
Is it really worth our time to rewrite the various jquery validation rules on the server? Specifically how could a malicious user compromise our server or what specific attacks could we be open to?
I apologize as it appears that this question has been discussed a few times on this site – but I have yet to find an answer that cites specific risks or issues with not performing server side validation. Thanks in advance
Hypothetical situation:
Let's say you have a zip code field. On the client-side you validate that it must be in a "00000" or "00000-0000" pattern. Since you're allowing a hyphen, you decide to store the field as a varchar in the database.
So, some evil user comes along and decides to bypass all of your client-side validation and submit something that's not in the correct format and makes it past the request validation.
Ok, no big deal..., you're encoding it before displaying it back to the user later anyway.
But what else are you doing with that zip code? Are you submitting it to web service for some sort of lookup? Are you uploading it to a GPS device? Will it ever be interpreted by something else in the future? Does your zipcode field now contain some JSON or something else weird?
Or something like this: http://www.businessinsider.com/livingsocial-server-flaw-2011-1
Security is a dependability attribute that is defined as the probability that the system resists to an attack, or else the probability a fault is not maliciously activated.
In order to implement security, you must perform a threat analysis. Complex computer systems are subject to deeper analyses (think about an aircraft's o a control tower's equipment) as they become more critical and threats pose business or human life at risk.
You can perform your own threat analysis by questioning yourself what happens if a user bypasses validation?.
Two groups of answers, by examples:
Group 1 (critical)
The user can buy articles paying less than their price
The user can be revealed information about other users
The user obtains privileges he/she is not supposed to have
Group 2 (non critical)
The user is displayed inconsistent data in the next page
Processing continues, but the inconsistency leads to an error that requires human intervention
The user's data (but only of that user, not others) get compromised
A strange error page is returned to the user, with lots of technical information that cannot be used anyway
In the first case, you must definitely fix your validation problem, because you could lose money after an attack, or lose the trust of your public (think about forging Facebook URLs and showing someone's photos even if you are not mutually friends).
In the second case, if you are sure that an inconsistent field doesn't put your business or the data at risk, you may still avoid fixing
The real problem is
How do you prove that any inconsistent data sent to your website is never supposed to have any consequence over the system that may pose a threat?
So that's why you lose less time fixing your validation rather than thinking about it
Honestly, users don't care what you consider "sensitive" or "critical" data. Those criteria are up to them to decide.
I know that if I was a user of your application and I saw my data change without me directly doing something to cause the change...I would close my account up as fast as possible. It would be readily apparent that your system wasn't secure and none of my data was safe.
Keep in mind that you're forcing people to log in so you at least have their passwords somewhere. Whether or not they are easily accessed, a breach is a breach and I have lost my trust.
So...while you may not consider an input injection attack important, your users will and that is why you should still do server side input validation.
Your data may not be worth much, that's fine by me.
BUT, attackers could inject CSRF "cross site request forgery" attack code into your application; users of your site may have their data at other sites compromised. Yes, it would require those 'other sites' to have bugs, but that happens. Yes, it would require that users not use the 'logout' buttons on those sites, but not enough people use them. Think of all the tasty data your users have stored at other web sites. You wouldn't something bad to happen to your users.
Attackers could inject HTML that invites users to download and install 'plugins necessary for viewing this content' -- plugins that are keyloggers, or search hard drives for credit card numbers or tax filings. Maybe a plugin to become spambots or porn hosts. Your users trust your site to not recommend plugins that are owned by the Yakuza, right? They might not feel friendly if your site recommends installing evil things.
Depending upon what kinds of bugs invalid data might trigger, you might find yourself a spambot or a porn host. It heavily depends on how defensively you have coded other aspects of your application. Too many applications blindly trust input data.
And the best part: your users aren't human. Your users are browsers, which might be executing attacks supplied by other sites that didn't bother to perform good input validation and output sanitizing. Your users are viruses or worms that happen to find you by chance or by design. You might trust the individuals, but how far do you trust their computers? Me, not very far.
Please write applications to be as secure as you can -- you may put a large button on the front page to drop all users' data if you want -- but please don't intentionally write insecure programs.
This an excellent and brave question. The short (and possibly brave) answer is you don't. If you are aware of all the security vulnerabilities and you still don't believe it's necessary, then that's your choice.
It really depends on who your users are, who the site is exposed to (in terms of intranet or internet) and how easy it is to obtain an account. You say that your data is not sensitive yet you still require users to log in. How bad would it be if an unauthorised user were to access the system by hopping on another user's machine whilst they were elsewhere?
Bear in mind that relying on the request validation to look for malicious input can never be proved to be 100% safe so security is usually done at multiple levels with a fair bit of redundancy.
However it has to be your choice and you are doing the right thing to find out the consequences of leaving this out.
I believe that you need to validate both on the client side and on the server side, and here's why.
On the client side, you are often saving the user from submitting data that is obviously wrong. They have not filled in a required field. They have put letters in a field that is only supposed to contain numbers. They have provided a date in the future when only a date in the past will do (such as date of birth). And so on. By preventing these kinds of mistakes on the client side, you are avoiding user frustration, and also reducing the number of unnecessary hits to your web server.
On the server side, you should generally repeat all of the validation that you did on the client side. That is because, as you have observed, clever users can get around client-side validation and submit invalid data. In addition, there is some validation that is inefficient or impossible to do on the client side. Sometimes, you check that the data entry adheres to business rules. You might check it against existing data in the database. If you just let users enter anything (especially omitting required fields), the website won't function properly for them.
Check out the Tamper Data extension for firefox. You can feed the server anything you want very easily
Anyone performing HTTP POSTs to your server via your web site (with jQuery validation) can also perform HTTP POSTs via some other means that bypasses the jQuery validation. For example, I could use System.Net.HttpWebRequest to POST some data to your server with the appropriate cookies that injects malicious content into the form fields. I'd have to set up the __EVENT_VALIDATION and __VIEWSTATE fields correctly, but if I succeed, I'd be bypassing the validation.
If you don't have server-side data validation, then you are effectively not validating the inputs at all. The jQuery validation is nice for user experience but not a real line of defense.
This is especially so with inputs like a free-form comments field. You definitely want to ensure that the field does not contain HTML or other malicious script. As an extra measure of defense, you should also escape the comment content when it is displayed in your web app with a library like AntiXss (see http://wpl.codeplex.com/).
In terms of client-side vs. server-side validation, my opinion is that client-side validation is just to make sure the form is filled correctly and a user could tamper with the form and bypass the verifications you do in javascript.
On the server-side you could actually make sure that you actually want to store this data and validate it in depth manner and check relative database tables to ensure that your database is always normalized with any data set that you get from the client. I would say even that the server side is more important than the client side in terms of not showing the user what do you look for in the form and how you validate the data.
to summarize, I recommend verification on both sides, but if I had to choose between the two i would recommend server-side validation , but that could mean that your server could potentially performing additional validations that you could have prevented from validating on the client side
To answer your second question:
You need to use a whitelist to keep malicious input out of the incoming comments.
The .NET Framework request validation does a very good job of stopping XSS payloads in incoming POST requests. It may not, however, prevent other malicious or mischevious HTML from getting into the comments (image tags, hyperlinks, etc.).
So if possible I would set up whitelist validation on the server side for allowed characters. A regex should cover this just fine. You should allow A-Za-z0-9, whitespace, and a few punctuation marks. If the regex fails to match, return an error message to the user and stop the transaction. Regarding SQL Injection: I would allow apostrophes through in this case (unless you like terrible grammar in your comments), but put code comments around your parameterized SQL queries to the effect of: "This is the only protection against SQL, so be careful when modifying." You should also lock down the permissions of the database account used by the web process (read/write only, not database owner permissions). What I wouldn't do is try to do blacklist validation on the input, as that is very time consuming to do correctly (see RSnake's XSS Cheat Sheet at http://ha.ckers.org/xss.html for an idea of the number of things you would need to prevent just for XSS).
Between the .NET framework and your own whitelist validation you should be safe from HTML-based attacks such as XSS and CSRF*. SQL injection will be prevented by using parameterized queries. If the comment data touches any other assets you may need to put more controls in place, but those cover the attacks relevant to the basic data submission form you've outlined.
Also, I wouldn't try to "cleanse" the data at all. It is very difficult to do properly and users (as was mentioned above) hate it when their data is modified without their permission. It is more secure and more usable to give user's a clear error message when your data validation fails. If you put their comment back on the page for them to edit, HTML encode the output so you aren't vulnerable to a Reflected XSS attack.
And as always, OWASP.org (http://www.owasp.org) is a good reference for all things webappsec related. Check out their Top Ten and Development Guide projects.
*CSRF may not be a direct concern of yours, as fraudulent posts to your site may not matter to you, but preventing XSS has the side benefit of keeping CSRF payloads targeting other sites from being hosted from your site.
I recently received a feedback from a colleague about my source code of a website. He says that it is a bad practice to not handle gracefully what visual interface does not allow to do.
Since it's not very clear, here's an example.
Let's say a visitor can comment something.
A comment is saved into a database, in a nvarchar(500) column.
The <input /> field length is limited to 500.
But, of course, nothing forbids to a more advanced user to disable the length limit and to type 501 character.
(Other examples: submitting an option which does not even exist in a <select />. But there is a graceful error when the user is asked to enter a number, and she enters a non-number instead, since keypress events are controlled through JavaScript, and JavaScript may be disabled)
If the visitor does so, there would be a failure on code contracts level. The AJAX request would fail with an unexpected error (or, on page submit, there will be an unexpected error). In all cases, the visitor will see that something wrong happened, but will have no graceful message indicating that the length of the submitted comment is too long.
Why is it bad practice? Why would I bother to design clear and explicit error messages for the cases where the visitor who uses correctly the website will never have?
Note: I understand that it sucks to display a .NET Framework detailed error and a stack trace when something like this happens. If I do so, it's a serious security issue. But in my case, there is just an AJAX response with something very generic or a redirect to a generic page with the apologizes about an error.
Since everyone appears to be missing your actual question, I'll put in my 2c (though I'll no doubt be downvoted in retaliation)
As long as your inputs are validated server side (your client-side maxlength is probably ok, though some obscure browsers may not support it), you can return a generic error message as long as it contains no exception information (which you have stated it doesn't).
If, however, it's possible to fail validation via lack of javascript or incorrect entry, then a custom error message should be provided for the sake of the user's sanity.
In short, what you are doing is fine.
First an most importantly
You should validate everything the user supplies on the server! This means not letting 501 letters through
Other than that if an unhandled exception occurs you should show the user a message which gives nothing away. If you were to return exception information this is gold dust to an attacker.
The best method is to display a general error such as "We're sorry, we're working on the problem straight away" and e-mail the exception information to the developers in order for them to fix it.
Why would I bother to design clear and explicit error messages for the cases where the visitor who uses correctly the website will never have?
If everyone used the web correctly, we'd never need to have validation.
As Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust, but verify".
Put in server-side validation for the length of fields. Put in validation to make sure there aren't any XSS or SQL Injection attacks. It's not the people who use your site correctly that you have to worry about, it's the ones that use it maliciously.
I think that the largest part of the problem is that you are assuming that validation should only be happening in the UI. It really is best to validate in the UI and the backend. There is no need to return a stack trace or detailed exception information. On Page_Load(), you should always be validating all user input again and displaying the information statically, as if the user has disabled JavaScript.
What you're describing isn't just bad practice, it's bad design. If you can anticipate an error or exception, then you should anticipate methods of handling it, mitigating it or alleviating it. This goes for any interface design whether it's for a website or a refrigerator. If a visitor gets a generic error and is given no insight as to how to fix it, then why should that person bother using your website? If they're forced to (for work reasons maybe), then all you've done is alienate your customer and give yourself a bad name.
I would suggest you ask yourself why you're not handling these very easy to control situations. Is it laziness or do you just lack experience as a user?
Server side validation is for two main purposes:
as a graceful degradation if the client validation doesn't work for some reason
in this case, you want a nice user-friendly message
as a security measure to ensure malicious clients can't damage your system.
in this case, you want no internal details displayed
If you want to take the route of true graceful degradation, it would be NICE if the server still gave back the user a friendly message for each validation.
In the case of maxLength, this is not very likely to be needed. But many kinds of validation use Javascript, and there are still those people or platforms that don't support Javascript. Older mobile platforms would be the main suspects here.
However, these days, most of us assume that Javascript can be relied on, so a generic error message if server validation fails is fine.
This is the first time I have been faced with someone trying to penetrate a website I have created. What can I do to put a stop to the attempts?
As a side note, their sql injection stands no chance of ever working and there isn't any data that we have that isn't already available by anyone using this site normally.
Appended:
I think the code part is covered for most XSS and sql injection but I am definitely considering a security audit. I was just curious about the response. Am I really only limited to blocking ip addresses?
If you already are protected against SQL injections, you've got a major attack covered. The next biggest threat (in my opinion) would be Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) since it would allow an attacker to have another user do something malicious, making it hard to track that activity.
You should also be aware of Cross-Site Request Forgeries (CSRF), since that is one that many people seem to miss a lot of times.
I would take a look at OWASP's Top 10 Web Security Vulnerabilities and make sure you protect against all 10 them as best as possible. Any one of them could seriously open yourself up to attackers if you aren't careful.
Unless this is your first public website, all of the websites you have worked on were under attack roughly 3 minutes in to being accessible whether you knew it or not.
A couple things you can start doing are:
Start blocking the IPs that attacks are coming from. This isn't always feasible as IP addresses frequently change and some types of attacks can work with a spoofed address.
Put an intrusion detection system (IDS) in place and start monitoring everything.
Verify your firewalls are working correctly and monitor the attack vectors. Make sure everything they are going after is pretty well secured.
This answer comes from another one that I answered about IIS getting hacked:
Hopefully you've had your IIS logfiles
turned on and hopefully the hacker
didn't erase them. By default they're
located here:
c:\winnt\system32\LogFiles\W3SVC1 and
will generally be named after the
date.
Then it's probably helpful to figure
out how to use log parser (from
Microsoft), which is free. Then use
this guide to help you with
looking forensically at your logfiles.
Do you have a firewall because it's
syslogs might be helpful.
Another decent tool to help you find
sql injection issues is to go
here and download HP's Scrawlr.
If you have any more questions about
what you've found, come back and ask.
Is it many sources or just a few IP's? We've had a few IP's do shadowy things and have used IIS to block them specifically. If it's a coordinated attack from multiple sources this won't help.
I know that using non-GET methods (POST, PUT, DELETE) to modify server data is The Right Way to do things. I can find multiple resources claiming that GET requests should not change resources on the server.
However, if a client were to come up to me today and say "I don't care what The Right Way to do things is, it's easier for us to use your API if we can just use call URLs and get some XML back - we don't want to have to build HTTP requests and POST/PUT XML," what business-conducive reasons could I give to convince them otherwise?
Are there caching implications? Security issues? I'm kind of looking for more than just "it doesn't make sense semantically" or "it makes things ambiguous."
Edit:
Thanks for the answers so far regarding prefetching. I'm not as concerned with prefetching since is mostly surrounding internal network API use and not visitable HTML pages that would have links that could be prefetched by a browser.
Prefetch: A lot of web browsers will use prefetching. Which means that it will load a page before you click on the link. Anticipating that you will click on that link later.
Bots: There are several bots that scan and index the internet for information. They will only issue GET requests. You don't want to delete something from a GET request for this reason.
Caching: GET HTTP requests should not change state and they should be idempotent. Idempotent means that issuing a request once, or issuing it multiple times gives the same result. I.e. there are no side effects. For this reason GET HTTP requests are tightly tied to caching.
HTTP standard says so: The HTTP standard says what each HTTP method is for. Several programs are built to use the HTTP standard, and they assume that you will use it the way you are supposed to. So you will have undefined behavior from a slew of random programs if you don't follow.
How about Google finding a link to that page with all the GET parameters in the URL and revisiting it every now and then? That could lead to a disaster.
There's a funny article about this on The Daily WTF.
GETs can be forced on a user and result in Cross-site Request Forgery (CSRF). For instance, if you have a logout function at http://example.com/logout.php, which changes the server state of the user, a malicious person could place an image tag on any site that uses the above URL as its source: http://example.com/logout.php. Loading this code would cause the user to get logged out. Not a big deal in the example given, but if that was a command to transfer funds out of an account, it would be a big deal.
Good reasons to do it the right way...
They are industry standard, well documented, and easy to secure. While you fully support making life as easy as possible for the client you don't want to implement something that's easier in the short term, in preference to something that's not quite so easy for them but offers long term benefits.
One of my favourite quotes
Quick and Dirty... long after the
Quick has departed the Dirty remains.
For you this one is a "A stitch in time saves nine" ;)
Security:
CSRF is so much easier in GET requests.
Using POST won't protect you anyway but GET can lead easier exploitation and mass exploitation by using forums and places which accepts image tags.
Depending on what you do in server-side using GET can help attacker to launch DoS (Denial of Service). An attacker can spam thousands of websites with your expensive GET request in an image tag and every single visitor of those websites will carry out this expensive GET request against your web server. Which will cause lots of CPU cycle to you.
I'm aware that some pages are heavy anyway and this is always a risk, but it's bigger risk if you add 10 big records in every single GET request.
Security for one. What happens if a web crawler comes across a delete link, or a user is tricked into clicking a hyperlink? A user should know what they're doing before they actually do it.
I'm kind of looking for more than just "it doesn't make sense semantically" or "it makes things ambiguous."
...
I don't care what The Right Way to do things is, it's easier for us
Tell them to think of the worst API they've ever used. Can they not imagine how that was caused by a quick hack that got extended?
It will be easier (and cheaper) in 2 months if you start with something that makes sense semantically. We call it the "Right Way" because it makes things easier, not because we want to torture you.
This is a shameless information gathering exercise for my own book.
One of the talks I give in the community is an introduction to web site vulnerabilities. Usually during the talk I can see at least two members of the audience go very pale; and this is basic stuff, Cross Site Scripting, SQL Injection, Information Leakage, Cross Site Form Requests and so on.
So, if you can think back to being one, as a beginning web developer (be it ASP.NET or not) what do you feel would be useful information about web security and how to develop securely? I will already be covering the OWASP Top Ten
(And yes this means stackoverflow will be in the acknowledgements list if someone comes up with something I haven't thought of yet!)
It's all done now, and published, thank you all for your responses
First, I would point out the insecurities of the web in a way that makes them accesible to people for whom developing with security in mind may (unfortunately) be a new concept. For example, show them how to intercept an HTTP header and implement an XSS attack. The reason you want to show them the attacks is so they themselves have a better idea of what they're defending against. Talking about security beyond that is great, but without understanding the type of attack they're meant to thwart, it will be hard for them to accurately "test" their systems for security. Once they can test for security by trying to intercept messages, spoof headers, etc. then they at least know if whatever security they're trying to implement is working or not. You can teach them whatever methods you want for implementing that security with confidence, knowing if they get it wrong, they will actually know about it because it will fail the security tests you showed them to try.
Defensive programming as an archetypal topic which covers all the particular attacks, as most, if not all, of them are caused by not thinking defensively enough.
Make that subject the central column of the book . What would've served me well back then was knowing about techniques to never trust anything, not just one stop tips, like "do not allow SQL comments or special chars in your input".
Another interesting thing I'd love to have learned earlier is how to actually test for them.
I think all vulnerabilities are based off of programmers not thinking, either momentary lapses of judgement, or something they haven't thought of. One big vulnerability that was in an application that I was tasked to "fix up", was the fact that they had returned 0 (Zero) from the authentication method when the user that was logging in was an administrator. Because of the fact that the variable was initialized originally as 0, if any issues happened such as the database being down, which caused it to throw an exception. The variable would never be set to the proper "security code" and the user would then have admin access to the site. Absolutely horrible thought went into that process. So, that brings me to a major security concept; Never set the initial value of a variable representing a "security level" or anything of that sort, to something that represents total god control of the site. Better yet, use existing libraries out there that have gone through the fire of being used in massive amounts of production environments for a long period of time.
I would like to see how ASP.NET security is different from ASP Classic security.
Foxes
Good to hear that you will have the OWASP Top Ten. Why not also include coverage of the SANS/CWE Top 25 Programming mistakes.
How to make sure your security method is scalable with SQL Server. Especially how to avoid having SQL Server serialize requests from multiple users because they all connect with the same ID...
I always try to show the worst-case scenario on things that might go wrong. For instance on how a cross-site script injection can work as a black-box attack that even works on pages in the application that a hacker can’t access himself or how even an SQL injection can work as a black box and how a hacker can steal your sensitive business data, even when your website connects to your database with a normal non-privileged login account.