Threat Class :Cross-site Request Forgery
Reason :The test result seems to indicate a vulnerability because the Test Response is identical to the Original Response, indicating that the Cross-Site Request Forgery attempt was successful, even though it included a fictive 'Referer' header.
Technical Description :Even well-formed, valid, consistent requests may have been sent without the user's knowledge. Web applications should therefore examine all requests for signs that they are not legitimate. The result of this test indicates that the application being scanned does not do this.
The severity of this vulnerability depends on the functionality of the affected application. For example, a CSRF attack on a search page is less severe than a CSRF attack on a money-transfer or profile-update page.
When a web server is designed to receive a request from a client without any mechanism for verifying that it was intentionally sent, then it might be possible for an attacker to trick a client into making an unintentional request to the web server which will be treated as an authentic request. This can be done via a URL, image load, XMLHttpRequest, etc., and can result in exposure of data or unintended code execution.
If the user is currently logged-in to the victim site, the request will automatically use the user's credentials including session cookies, IP address, and other browser authentication methods. Using this method, the attacker forges the victim's identity and submits actions on his or her behalf.
Risk :It may be possible to steal or manipulate customer session and cookies, which might be used to impersonate a legitimate user, allowing the hacker to view or alter user records, and to perform transactions as that user
Mitigation: There are several mitigation techniques:
[1] Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness, or provides constructs that make it easier to avoid.
For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard -
Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF -
[2] Ensure that your application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
[3] Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330) -
Note that this can be bypassed using XSS (CWE-79).
[4] Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
Note that this can be bypassed using XSS (CWE-79).
[5] Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller:
When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as both a form and a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form and cookie values are the same.
Because of same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult.
This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled -
Note that this can probably be bypassed using XSS (CWE-79), or when using web technologies that enable the attacker to read raw headers from HTTP requests.
[6] Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
[7] Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
Note that this can be bypassed using XSS (CWE-79). An attacker could use XSS to generate a spoofed Referer, or to generate a malicious request from a page whose Referer would be allowed.
Threat Class :Cross-site Request Forgery Reason :The test result seems to indicate a vulnerability because the Test Response is identical to the Original Response, indicating that the Cross-Site Request Forgery attempt was successful, even though it included a fictive 'Referer' header. Technical Description :Even well-formed, valid, consistent requests may have been sent without the user's knowledge. Web applications should therefore examine all requests for signs that they are not legitimate. The result of this test indicates that the application being scanned does not do this. The severity of this vulnerability depends on the functionality of the affected application. For example, a CSRF attack on a search page is less severe than a CSRF attack on a money-transfer or profile-update page. When a web server is designed to receive a request from a client without any mechanism for verifying that it was intentionally sent, then it might be possible for an attacker to trick a client into making an unintentional request to the web server which will be treated as an authentic request. This can be done via a URL, image load, XMLHttpRequest, etc., and can result in exposure of data or unintended code execution. If the user is currently logged-in to the victim site, the request will automatically use the user's credentials including session cookies, IP address, and other browser authentication methods. Using this method, the attacker forges the victim's identity and submits actions on his or her behalf. Risk :It may be possible to steal or manipulate customer session and cookies, which might be used to impersonate a legitimate user, allowing the hacker to view or alter user records, and to perform transactions as that user
Mitigation: There are several mitigation techniques: [1] Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness, or provides constructs that make it easier to avoid. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard - Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF - [2] Ensure that your application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script. [3] Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330) - Note that this can be bypassed using XSS (CWE-79). [4] Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation. Note that this can be bypassed using XSS (CWE-79). [5] Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as both a form and a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form and cookie values are the same. Because of same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled - Note that this can probably be bypassed using XSS (CWE-79), or when using web technologies that enable the attacker to read raw headers from HTTP requests. [6] Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change. [7] Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons. Note that this can be bypassed using XSS (CWE-79). An attacker could use XSS to generate a spoofed Referer, or to generate a malicious request from a page whose Referer would be allowed.
https://preprod.armorcode.ai/#/findings/3505684