These guidelines are based on the [[OWASP Top Ten Web Application Vulnerabilities | http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007]]. Individual descriptions are followed by a link to the appropriate expanded reference page on the OWASP website.
XSS flaws occur whenever an application takes user supplied data and sends it to a web browser without first validating or encoding that content. XSS allows attackers to execute script in the victim's browser which can hijack user sessions, deface web sites, possibly introduce worms, etc. [[link | http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007-Cross_Site_Scripting]]
Testing for XSS consists of the following:
- manual testing of individual form fields by entering a simple script such as <script>window.alert("meow")</script>
- manual testing of URLs for parameter-based injection with similar scripts
- inspection of code to ensure that all views have properly escaped code displayed back to the user
- scanning with automated tools such as [[XSS Me | https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7598]]
This attack is highly relevant to the MarkUs project, as it can be used to elevate student privileges to TA or admin level.
Injection flaws, particularly SQL injection, are common in web applications. Injection occurs when user-supplied data is sent to an interpreter as part of a command or query. The attacker's hostile data tricks the interpreter into executing unintended commands or changing data. [[link | http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007-Injection_Flaws]]
Testing for Injection Flaws consists of the following:
- manual testing of individual form fields by entering SQL snippets designed to be executed in whichever database the project runs against
- manual testing of URLs for parameter-based injection with similar scripts
- inspection of code to ensure that queries are properly parameterized and validated
- scanning with automated tools such as [[SQL Inject Me | https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7597]]
This attack is highly relevant to the MarkUs project, as it can be used to tamper with or destroy student data.
Code vulnerable to remote file inclusion (RFI) allows attackers to include hostile code and data, resulting in devastating attacks, such as total server compromise. Malicious file execution attacks affect PHP, XML and any framework which accepts filenames or files from users. [[link | http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007-Malicious_File_Execution]]
This is a tricky issue to test for, but the key thing to look for in a code review is proper validation of all filenames submitted to the application by the user, such that the user cannot reference files on the application server.
This is a serious issue in general, but for MarkUs it's somewhat mitigated by the use of Rails.
A direct object reference occurs when a developer exposes a reference to an internal implementation object, such as a file, directory, database record, or key, as a URL or form parameter. Attackers can manipulate those references to access other objects without authorization. [[link | http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007-Insecure_Direct_Object_Reference]]
The use of MVC frameworks like Rails protects against the most common of DOR attacks involving database records. In regards to testing OWASP states that "The goal is to verify that the application does not allow direct object references to be manipulated by an attacker." This is done by reviewing the code for instances of direct reference, and manually testing for things like incorrect filesystem access. The classic example here is tampering with a form to request the file ../../../../etc/passwd.
This is an important area for MarkUs to be tested in, as it involves a lot of files uploaded to the application.
A CSRF attack forces a logged-on victim's browser to send a pre-authenticated request to a vulnerable web application, which then forces the victim's browser to perform a hostile action to the benefit of the attacker. CSRF can be as powerful as the web application that it attacks. [[link | http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007-Cross_Site_Request_Forgery]]
CSRF attacks are easy to test for, but can be challenging to mitigate. Fortunately, Rails has built-in anti-CSRF functionality. See [[here | http://baseunderattack.com/2008/04/18/ruby-on-rails-and-csrf-protection/]] for a writeup.
Testing for CSRF at it's most basic involves a code snippet like the following, hosted on another server:
<img src="http://www.markusproject.org/admin-demo/main/logout">
In an application which checks against CSRF, this will do nothing; in an application where protection is not in place, it will log you out.
CSRF attacks are highly relevant to testing MarkUs, as they allow for privilege escalation and potentially tampering with student data.
Applications can unintentionally leak information about their configuration, internal workings, or violate privacy through a variety of application problems. Attackers use this weakness to steal sensitive data, or conduct more serious attacks. [[link | http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007-Information_Leakage_and_Improper_Error_Handling]]
Testing for information leakage typically consists of causing the application to error, and examining the result. It is also worth making sure that across the codebase there is a common strategy regardig error handling. Things to look for:
- Errors from different levels in the application stack: database, framework, web server, your code written on top of the framework
- Leakage via custom error codes - they may be useful debugging, but what information to they give an attacker?
Tools such as [[OWASP's WebScarab | http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_WebScarab_NG_Project]] are ideal for testing error conditions.
This is one of the less serious issues on its own, but information gleaned from overly verbose error messages can be used to exacerbate other attacks.
Account credentials and session tokens are often not properly protected. Attackers compromise passwords, keys, or authentication tokens to assume other users' identities. [[link | http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007-Broken_Authentication_and_Session_Management]]
Authentication mechanisms should never validate anything on the client side, as an attacker can circumvent such validation. It is advisable to use the built-in session management system for your framework; excercise great caution when extending it or working around it. Things to watch out for and test regarding session management: use of guessable session IDs, failure to correctly expire sessions, and storage of private session variables in the client side browser.
In situations like MarkUs where there is an external auth mechanism in place, it's worth looking at denial of service conditions - what if someone hits the login page with a script repeatedly? Will this crash the login server?
This is a serious issue, but if folks are judicious about sticking with the Rails auth system, there is much less risk.
Web applications rarely use cryptographic functions properly to protect data and credentials. Attackers use weakly protected data to conduct identity theft and other crimes, such as credit card fraud. [[link | http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007-Insecure_Cryptographic_Storage]]
MarkUs does not store data encrypted on the disk, but if there is a need to in the future, make sure to use tested and proven cryptographic libraries rather than writing any code which does crypto. Use the correct type of encryption (symmetric, asymmetric, hash) for a particular purpose.
Applications frequently fail to encrypt network traffic when it is necessary to protect sensitive communications. [[link| http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007-Insecure_Communications]]
Does your application communicate exclusively over SSL? Is SESSION_COOKIE_SECURE set to True so that your cookies won't be forced into the clear? What other side channels are used to communicate with your application, and are those secured using standard cryptographic libraries?
The two key takeaways from this issue are
- Use SSL for all sensitive communications with the server, in particular authentication. Use it for everything if you can afford the overhead.
- Don't write your own cryptographic functions. Ever.
This is a fairly serious issue for an application which is likely to be use on a hostile network. The UTOR campus wireless is one such network.
Frequently, an application only protects sensitive functionality by preventing the display of links or URLs to unauthorized users. Attackers can use this weakness to access and perform unauthorized operations by accessing those URLs directly. [[link | http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007-Failure_to_Restrict_URL_Access]]
This is easy to test against. Log in as an admin user and copy URLs which only the admin user has access to. Log back in as a non-admin user and try browsing to those URLs. This is known as "forced browsing." If you are able to, there is a problem with the access control mechanisms governing URL access.
This isue is highly relevant to MarkUs due to the possibility of privilege escalation on the part of students.