| 10 |
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables
This attack pattern involves causing a buffer overflow through manipulation of environment variables. Once the adversary finds that they can modify an environment variable, they may try to overflow associated buffers. This attack leverages implicit trust often placed in environment variables. [Identify target application] The adversary identifies a target application or program to perform the buffer overflow on. In this attack the adversary looks for an application that loads the content of an environment variable into a buffer. [Find injection vector] The adversary identifies an injection vector to deliver the excessive content to the targeted application's buffer. [Craft overflow content] The adversary crafts the content to be injected. If the intent is to simply cause the software to crash, the content need only consist of an excessive quantity of random data. If the intent is to leverage the overflow for execution of arbitrary code, the adversary crafts the payload in such a way that the overwritten return address is replaced with one of the adversary's choosing. [Overflow the buffer] Using the injection vector, the adversary injects the crafted overflow content into the buffer. |
High |
| 105 |
HTTP Request Splitting
[Survey network to identify target] The adversary performs network reconnaissance by monitoring relevant traffic to identify the network path and parsing of the HTTP messages with the goal of identifying potential targets. [Identify vulnerabilities in targeted HTTP infrastructure and technologies] The adversary sends a variety of benign/ambiguous HTTP requests to observe responses from HTTP infrastructure in order to identify differences/discrepancies in the interpretation and parsing of HTTP requests by examining supported HTTP protocol versions, HTTP headers, syntax checking and input filtering. [Cause differential HTTP responses by experimenting with identified HTTP Request vulnerabilities] The adversary sends maliciously crafted HTTP requests with custom strings and embedded web scripts and objects in HTTP headers to interfere with the parsing of intermediary and back-end HTTP infrastructure, followed by normal/benign HTTP request from the adversary or a random user. The intended consequences of the malicious HTTP requests will be observed in the HTTP infrastructure response to the normal/benign HTTP request to confirm applicability of identified vulnerabilities in the adversary's plan of attack. [Perform HTTP Request Splitting attack] Using knowledge discovered in the experiment section above, smuggle a message to cause one of the consequences. |
High |
| 101 |
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection
An attacker can use Server Side Include (SSI) Injection to send code to a web application that then gets executed by the web server. Doing so enables the attacker to achieve similar results to Cross Site Scripting, viz., arbitrary code execution and information disclosure, albeit on a more limited scale, since the SSI directives are nowhere near as powerful as a full-fledged scripting language. Nonetheless, the attacker can conveniently gain access to sensitive files, such as password files, and execute shell commands. [Determine applicability] The adversary determines whether server side includes are enabled on the target web server. [Find Injection Point] Look for user controllable input, including HTTP headers, that can carry server side include directives to the web server. [Inject SSI] Using the found injection point, the adversary sends arbitrary code to be inlcuded by the application on the server side. They may then need to view a particular page in order to have the server execute the include directive and run a command or open a file on behalf of the adversary. |
High |
| 108 |
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection
An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host. [Probe for SQL Injection vulnerability] The attacker injects SQL syntax into user-controllable data inputs to search unfiltered execution of the SQL syntax in a query. [Achieve arbitrary command execution through SQL Injection with the MSSQL_xp_cmdshell directive] The attacker leverages a SQL Injection attack to inject shell code to be executed by leveraging the xp_cmdshell directive. [Inject malicious data in the database] Leverage SQL injection to inject data in the database that could later be used to achieve command injection if ever used as a command line argument [Trigger command line execution with injected arguments] The attacker causes execution of command line functionality which leverages previously injected database content as arguments. |
Very High |
| 120 |
Double Encoding
The adversary utilizes a repeating of the encoding process for a set of characters (that is, character encoding a character encoding of a character) to obfuscate the payload of a particular request. This may allow the adversary to bypass filters that attempt to detect illegal characters or strings, such as those that might be used in traversal or injection attacks. Filters may be able to catch illegal encoded strings, but may not catch doubly encoded strings. For example, a dot (.), often used in path traversal attacks and therefore often blocked by filters, could be URL encoded as %2E. However, many filters recognize this encoding and would still block the request. In a double encoding, the % in the above URL encoding would be encoded again as %25, resulting in %252E which some filters might not catch, but which could still be interpreted as a dot (.) by interpreters on the target. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser, an automated tool or by inspecting the application, an attacker records all entry points to the application. [Probe entry points to locate vulnerabilities] Try double-encoding for parts of the input in order to try to get past the filters. For instance, by double encoding certain characters in the URL (e.g. dots and slashes) an adversary may try to get access to restricted resources on the web server or force browse to protected pages (thus subverting the authorization service). An adversary can also attempt other injection style attacks using this attack pattern: command injection, SQL injection, etc. |
Medium |
| 13 |
Subverting Environment Variable Values
The adversary directly or indirectly modifies environment variables used by or controlling the target software. The adversary's goal is to cause the target software to deviate from its expected operation in a manner that benefits the adversary. [Probe target application] The adversary first probes the target application to determine important information about the target. This information could include types software used, software versions, what user input the application consumes, and so on. Most importantly, the adversary tries to determine what environment variables might be used by the underlying software, or even the application itself. [Find user-controlled environment variables] Using the information found by probing the application, the adversary attempts to manipulate any user-controlled environment variables they have found are being used by the application, or suspect are being used by the application, and observe the effects of these changes. If the adversary notices any significant changes to the application, they will know that a certain environment variable is important to the application behavior and indicates a possible attack vector. [Manipulate user-controlled environment variables] The adversary manipulates the found environment variable(s) to abuse the normal flow of processes or to gain access to privileged resources. |
Very High |
| 135 |
Format String Injection
An adversary includes formatting characters in a string input field on the target application. Most applications assume that users will provide static text and may respond unpredictably to the presence of formatting character. For example, in certain functions of the C programming languages such as printf, the formatting character %s will print the contents of a memory location expecting this location to identify a string and the formatting character %n prints the number of DWORD written in the memory. An adversary can use this to read or write to memory locations or files, or simply to manipulate the value of the resulting text in unexpected ways. Reading or writing memory may result in program crashes and writing memory could result in the execution of arbitrary code if the adversary can write to the program stack. [Survey application] The adversary takes an inventory of the entry points of the application. [Determine user-controllable input susceptible to format string injection] Determine the user-controllable input susceptible to format string injection. For each user-controllable input that the adversary suspects is vulnerable to format string injection, attempt to inject formatting characters such as %n, %s, etc.. The goal is to manipulate the string creation using these formatting characters. [Try to exploit the Format String Injection vulnerability] After determining that a given input is vulnerable to format string injection, hypothesize what the underlying usage looks like and the associated constraints. |
High |
| 14 |
Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow
This type of attack exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in targeted client software through injection of malicious content from a custom-built hostile service. This hostile service is created to deliver the correct content to the client software. For example, if the client-side application is a browser, the service will host a webpage that the browser loads. [Identify target client-side application] The adversary identifies a target client-side application to perform the buffer overflow on. The most common are browsers. If there is a known browser vulnerability an adversary could target that. [Find injection vector] The adversary identifies an injection vector to deliver the excessive content to the targeted application's buffer. [Create hostile service] The adversary creates a hostile service that will deliver content to the client-side application. If the intent is to simply cause the software to crash, the content need only consist of an excessive quantity of random data. If the intent is to leverage the overflow for execution of arbitrary code, the adversary crafts the payload in such a way that the overwritten return address is replaced with one of the adversary's choosing. [Overflow the buffer] Using the injection vector, the adversary delivers the content to the client-side application using the hostile service and overflows the buffer. |
High |
| 24 |
Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow
In this attack, the idea is to cause an active filter to fail by causing an oversized transaction. An attacker may try to feed overly long input strings to the program in an attempt to overwhelm the filter (by causing a buffer overflow) and hoping that the filter does not fail securely (i.e. the user input is let into the system unfiltered). [Survey] The attacker surveys the target application, possibly as a valid and authenticated user [Attempt injections] Try to feed overly long data to the system. This can be done manually or a dynamic tool (black box) can be used to automate this. An attacker can also use a custom script for that purpose. [Monitor responses] Watch for any indication of failure occurring. Carefully watch to see what happened when filter failure occurred. Did the data get in? [Abuse the system through filter failure] An attacker writes a script to consistently induce the filter failure. |
High |
| 250 |
XML Injection
An attacker utilizes crafted XML user-controllable input to probe, attack, and inject data into the XML database, using techniques similar to SQL injection. The user-controllable input can allow for unauthorized viewing of data, bypassing authentication or the front-end application for direct XML database access, and possibly altering database information. [Survey the Target] Using a browser or an automated tool, an adversary records all instances of user-controllable input used to contruct XML queries [Determine the Structure of Queries] Using manual or automated means, test inputs found for XML weaknesses. [Inject Content into XML Queries] Craft malicious content containing XML expressions that is not validated by the application and is executed as part of the XML queries. |
|
| 267 |
Leverage Alternate Encoding
An adversary leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input or content used by applications such that the applications are ineffective at validating this encoding standard. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser, an automated tool or by inspecting the application, an adversary records all entry points to the application. [Probe entry points to locate vulnerabilities] The adversary uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and injects various payloads using a variety of different types of encodings to determine if an entry point actually represents a vulnerability with insufficient validation logic and to characterize the extent to which the vulnerability can be exploited. |
High |
| 273 |
HTTP Response Smuggling
Modification/manipulation of HTTP message headers, request-line and body parameters to disrupt and interfere in the interpretation and parsing of HTTP message lengths/boundaries for consecutive HTTP messages by HTTP agents in a HTTP chain or network path. [Survey network to identify target] The adversary performs network reconnaissance by monitoring relevant traffic to identify the network path and parsing of the HTTP messages with the goal of identifying potential targets. [Identify vulnerabilities in targeted HTTP infrastructure and technologies] The adversary sends a variety of benign/ambiguous HTTP requests to observe responses from HTTP infrastructure to intended targets in order to identify differences/discrepancies in the interpretation and parsing of HTTP requests by examining supported HTTP protocol versions, message sizes, and HTTP headers. [Cause differential HTTP responses by experimenting with identified HTTP Response vulnerabilities] The adversary sends maliciously crafted HTTP request to back-end HTTP infrastructure to inject adversary data into HTTP responses (intended for intermediary and/or front-end client/victim HTTP agents communicating with back-end HTTP infrastructure) for the purpose of interfering with the parsing of HTTP response. The intended consequences of the malicious HTTP request and the subsequent adversary injection and manipulation of HTTP responses will be observed to confirm applicability of identified vulnerabilities in the adversary's plan of attack. [Perform HTTP Response Smuggling attack] Using knowledge discovered in the experiment section above, smuggle a message to cause one of the consequences. |
High |
| 28 |
Fuzzing
In this attack pattern, the adversary leverages fuzzing to try to identify weaknesses in the system. Fuzzing is a software security and functionality testing method that feeds randomly constructed input to the system and looks for an indication that a failure in response to that input has occurred. Fuzzing treats the system as a black box and is totally free from any preconceptions or assumptions about the system. Fuzzing can help an attacker discover certain assumptions made about user input in the system. Fuzzing gives an attacker a quick way of potentially uncovering some of these assumptions despite not necessarily knowing anything about the internals of the system. These assumptions can then be turned against the system by specially crafting user input that may allow an attacker to achieve their goals. [Observe communication and inputs] The fuzzing attacker observes the target system looking for inputs and communications between modules, subsystems, or systems. [Generate fuzzed inputs] Given a fuzzing tool, a target input or protocol, and limits on time, complexity, and input variety, generate a list of inputs to try. Although fuzzing is random, it is not exhaustive. Parameters like length, composition, and how many variations to try are important to get the most cost-effective impact from the fuzzer. [Observe the outcome] Observe the outputs to the inputs fed into the system by fuzzers and see if anything interesting happens. If failure occurs, determine why that happened. Figure out the underlying assumption that was invalidated by the input. [Craft exploit payloads] Put specially crafted input into the system that leverages the weakness identified through fuzzing and allows to achieve the goals of the attacker. Fuzzers often reveal ways to slip through the input validation filters and introduce unwanted data into the system. |
Medium |
| 3 |
Using Leading 'Ghost' Character Sequences to Bypass Input Filters
Some APIs will strip certain leading characters from a string of parameters. An adversary can intentionally introduce leading "ghost" characters (extra characters that don't affect the validity of the request at the API layer) that enable the input to pass the filters and therefore process the adversary's input. This occurs when the targeted API will accept input data in several syntactic forms and interpret it in the equivalent semantic way, while the filter does not take into account the full spectrum of the syntactic forms acceptable to the targeted API. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser, an automated tool or by inspecting the application, an adversary records all entry points to the application. [Probe entry points to locate vulnerabilities] The adversary uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and injects various leading 'Ghost' character sequences to determine how to application filters them. [Bypass input filtering] Using what the adversary learned about how the application filters input data, they craft specific input data that bypasses the filter. This can lead to directory traversal attacks, arbitrary shell command execution, corruption of files, etc. |
Medium |
| 34 |
HTTP Response Splitting
[Survey network to identify target] The adversary performs network reconnaissance by monitoring relevant traffic to identify the network path and parsing of the HTTP messages with the goal of identifying potential targets [Identify vulnerabilities in targeted HTTP infrastructure and technologies] The adversary sends a variety of benign/ambiguous HTTP requests to observe responses from HTTP infrastructure in order to identify differences/discrepancies in the interpretation and parsing of HTTP requests by examining supported HTTP protocol versions, HTTP headers, syntax checking and input filtering. [Cause differential HTTP responses by experimenting with identified HTTP Request vulnerabilities] The adversary sends maliciously crafted HTTP request to back-end HTTP infrastructure to inject adversary data (in the form of HTTP headers with custom strings and embedded web scripts and objects) into HTTP responses (intended for intermediary and/or front-end client/victim HTTP agents communicating with back-end HTTP infrastructure) for the purpose of interfering with the parsing of HTTP responses by intermediary and front-end client/victim HTTP agents. The intended consequences of the malicious HTTP request and the subsequent adversary injection and manipulation of HTTP responses to intermediary and front-end client/victim HTTP agents, will be observed to confirm applicability of identified vulnerabilities in the adversary's plan of attack. [Perform HTTP Response Splitting attack] Using knowledge discovered in the experiment section above, smuggle a message to cause one of the consequences. |
High |
| 42 |
MIME Conversion
An attacker exploits a weakness in the MIME conversion routine to cause a buffer overflow and gain control over the mail server machine. The MIME system is designed to allow various different information formats to be interpreted and sent via e-mail. Attack points exist when data are converted to MIME compatible format and back. [Identify target mail server] The adversary identifies a target mail server that they wish to attack. [Determine viability of attack] Determine whether the mail server is unpatched and is potentially vulnerable to one of the known MIME conversion buffer overflows (e.g. Sendmail 8.8.3 and 8.8.4). [Find injection vector] Identify places in the system where vulnerable MIME conversion routines may be used. [Craft overflow content] The adversary crafts e-mail messages with special headers that will cause a buffer overflow for the vulnerable MIME conversion routine. The intent of this attack is to leverage the overflow for execution of arbitrary code and gain access to the mail server machine, so the adversary will craft an email that not only overflows the targeted buffer but does so in such a way that the overwritten return address is replaced with one of the adversary's choosing. [Overflow the buffer] Send e-mail messages to the target system with specially crafted headers that trigger the buffer overflow and execute the shell code. |
High |
| 43 |
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop. [Determine application/system inputs where bypassing input validation is desired] The attacker first needs to determine all of the application's/system's inputs where input validation is being performed and where they want to bypass it. [Determine which character encodings are accepted by the application/system] The attacker then needs to provide various character encodings to the application/system and determine which ones are accepted. The attacker will need to observe the application's/system's response to the encoded data to determine whether the data was interpreted properly. [Combine multiple encodings accepted by the application.] The attacker now combines encodings accepted by the application. The attacker may combine different encodings or apply the same encoding multiple times. [Leverage ability to bypass input validation] Attacker leverages their ability to bypass input validation to gain unauthorized access to system. There are many attacks possible, and a few examples are mentioned here. |
High |
| 45 |
Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An adversary can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking. [Identify target application] The adversary identifies a target application or program that might load in certain files to memory. [Find injection vector] The adversary identifies an injection vector to deliver the excessive content to the targeted application's buffer. [Craft overflow file content] The adversary crafts the content to be injected. If the intent is to simply cause the software to crash, the content need only consist of an excessive quantity of random data. If the intent is to leverage the overflow for execution of arbitrary code, the adversary crafts the payload in such a way that the overwritten return address is replaced with one of the adversary's choosing. [Overflow the buffer] Using the specially crafted file content, the adversary creates a symbolic link from the identified resource to the malicious file, causing a targeted buffer overflow attack. |
High |
| 46 |
Overflow Variables and Tags
This type of attack leverages the use of tags or variables from a formatted configuration data to cause buffer overflow. The adversary crafts a malicious HTML page or configuration file that includes oversized strings, thus causing an overflow. [Identify target application] The adversary identifies a target application or program to perform the buffer overflow on. Adversaries look for applications or programs that accept formatted files, such as configuration files, as input. [Find injection vector] The adversary identifies an injection vector to deliver the excessive content to the targeted application's buffer. [Craft overflow content] The adversary crafts the content to be injected. If the intent is to simply cause the software to crash, the content need only consist of an excessive quantity of random data. If the intent is to leverage the overflow for execution of arbitrary code, the adversary crafts the payload in such a way that the overwritten return address is replaced with one of the adversary's choosing. [Overflow the buffer] The adversary will upload the crafted file to the application, causing a buffer overflow. |
High |
| 47 |
Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion
In this attack, the target software is given input that the adversary knows will be modified and expanded in size during processing. This attack relies on the target software failing to anticipate that the expanded data may exceed some internal limit, thereby creating a buffer overflow. [Identify target application] The adversary identifies a target application or program to perform the buffer overflow on. Adversaries often look for applications that accept user input and that perform manual memory management. [Find injection vector] The adversary identifies an injection vector to deliver the excessive content to the targeted application's buffer. [Craft overflow content] The adversary crafts the input to be given to the program. If the intent is to simply cause the software to crash, the input needs only to expand to an excessive quantity of random data. If the intent is to leverage the overflow for execution of arbitrary code, the adversary will craft input that expands in a way that not only overflows the targeted buffer but does so in such a way that the overwritten return address is replaced with one of the adversaries' choosing which points to code injected by the adversary. [Overflow the buffer] Using the injection vector, the adversary gives the crafted input to the program, overflowing the buffer. |
High |
| 51 |
Poison Web Service Registry
SOA and Web Services often use a registry to perform look up, get schema information, and metadata about services. A poisoned registry can redirect (think phishing for servers) the service requester to a malicious service provider, provide incorrect information in schema or metadata, and delete information about service provider interfaces. [Find a target SOA or Web Service] The adversary must first indentify a target SOA or Web Service. [Determine desired outcome] Because poisoning a web service registry can have different outcomes, the adversary must decide how they wish to effect the webservice. [Determine if a malicious service needs to be created] If the adversary wishes to redirect requests or responses, they will need to create a malicious service to redirect to. [Poison Web Service Registry] Based on the desired outcome, poison the web service registry. This is done by altering the data at rest in the registry or uploading malicious content by spoofing a service provider. |
Very High |
| 52 |
Embedding NULL Bytes
An adversary embeds one or more null bytes in input to the target software. This attack relies on the usage of a null-valued byte as a string terminator in many environments. The goal is for certain components of the target software to stop processing the input when it encounters the null byte(s). [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser, an automated tool or by inspecting the application, an adversary records all entry points to the application. [Probe entry points to locate vulnerabilities] The adversary uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and injects postfix null byte(s) to observe how the application handles them as input. The adversary is looking for areas where user input is placed in the middle of a string, and the null byte causes the application to stop processing the string at the end of the user input. [Remove data after null byte(s)] After determined entry points that are vulnerable, the adversary places a null byte(s) such that they remove data after the null byte(s) in a way that is beneficial to them. |
High |
| 53 |
Postfix, Null Terminate, and Backslash
If a string is passed through a filter of some kind, then a terminal NULL may not be valid. Using alternate representation of NULL allows an adversary to embed the NULL mid-string while postfixing the proper data so that the filter is avoided. One example is a filter that looks for a trailing slash character. If a string insertion is possible, but the slash must exist, an alternate encoding of NULL in mid-string may be used. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser, an automated tool or by inspecting the application, an adversary records all entry points to the application. [Probe entry points to locate vulnerabilities] The adversary uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and injects postfix null byte(s) followed by a backslash to observe how the application handles them as input. The adversary is looking for areas where user input is placed in the middle of a string, and the null byte causes the application to stop processing the string at the end of the user input. [Remove data after null byte(s)] After determined entry points that are vulnerable, the adversary places a null byte(s) followed by a backslash such that they bypass an input filter and remove data after the null byte(s) in a way that is beneficial to them. |
High |
| 6 |
Argument Injection
An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods. [Discovery of potential injection vectors] Using an automated tool or manual discovery, the attacker identifies services or methods with arguments that could potentially be used as injection vectors (OS, API, SQL procedures, etc.). [1. Attempt variations on argument content] Possibly using an automated tool, the attacker will perform injection variations of the arguments. [Abuse of the application] The attacker injects specific syntax into a particular argument in order to generate a specific malicious effect in the targeted application. |
High |
| 64 |
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic
This attack targets the encoding of the URL combined with the encoding of the slash characters. An attacker can take advantage of the multiple ways of encoding a URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. A URL may contain special character that need special syntax handling in order to be interpreted. Special characters are represented using a percentage character followed by two digits representing the octet code of the original character (%HEX-CODE). For instance US-ASCII space character would be represented with %20. This is often referred as escaped ending or percent-encoding. Since the server decodes the URL from the requests, it may restrict the access to some URL paths by validating and filtering out the URL requests it received. An attacker will try to craft an URL with a sequence of special characters which once interpreted by the server will be equivalent to a forbidden URL. It can be difficult to protect against this attack since the URL can contain other format of encoding such as UTF-8 encoding, Unicode-encoding, etc. The attacker accesses the server using a specific URL. The attacker tries to encode some special characters in the URL. The attacker find out that some characters are not filtered properly. The attacker crafts a malicious URL string request and sends it to the server. The server decodes and interprets the URL string. Unfortunately since the input filtering is not done properly, the special characters have harmful consequences. |
High |
| 67 |
String Format Overflow in syslog()
This attack targets applications and software that uses the syslog() function insecurely. If an application does not explicitely use a format string parameter in a call to syslog(), user input can be placed in the format string parameter leading to a format string injection attack. Adversaries can then inject malicious format string commands into the function call leading to a buffer overflow. There are many reported software vulnerabilities with the root cause being a misuse of the syslog() function. [Identify target application] The adversary identifies a target application or program to perform the buffer overflow on. In this attack, adversaries look for applications that use syslog() incorrectly. [Find injection vector] The adversary identifies an injection vector to deliver the excessive content to the targeted application's buffer. For each user-controllable input that the adversary suspects is vulnerable to format string injection, attempt to inject formatting characters such as %n, %s, etc.. The goal is to manipulate the string creation using these formatting characters. [Craft overflow content] The adversary crafts the content to be injected. If the intent is to simply cause the software to crash, the content need only consist of an excessive quantity of random data. If the intent is to leverage the overflow for execution of arbitrary code, the adversary will craft a set of content that not only overflows the targeted buffer but does so in such a way that the overwritten return address is replaced with one of the adversaries' choosing which points to code injected by the adversary. [Overflow the buffer] Using the injection vector, the adversary supplies the program with the crafted format string injection, causing a buffer. |
Very High |
| 7 |
Blind SQL Injection
Blind SQL Injection results from an insufficient mitigation for SQL Injection. Although suppressing database error messages are considered best practice, the suppression alone is not sufficient to prevent SQL Injection. Blind SQL Injection is a form of SQL Injection that overcomes the lack of error messages. Without the error messages that facilitate SQL Injection, the adversary constructs input strings that probe the target through simple Boolean SQL expressions. The adversary can determine if the syntax and structure of the injection was successful based on whether the query was executed or not. Applied iteratively, the adversary determines how and where the target is vulnerable to SQL Injection. [Hypothesize SQL queries in application] [Determine how to inject information into the queries] [Determine user-controllable input susceptible to injection] Determine the user-controllable input susceptible to injection. For each user-controllable input that the adversary suspects is vulnerable to SQL injection, attempt to inject the values determined in the previous step. If an error does not occur, then the adversary knows that the SQL injection was successful. [Determine database type] Determines the type of the database, such as MS SQL Server or Oracle or MySQL, using logical conditions as part of the injected queries [Extract information about database schema] Extract information about database schema by getting the database to answer yes/no questions about the schema. [Exploit SQL Injection vulnerability] Use the information obtained in the previous steps to successfully inject the database in order to bypass checks or modify, add, retrieve or delete data from the database |
High |
| 71 |
Using Unicode Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
An attacker may provide a Unicode string to a system component that is not Unicode aware and use that to circumvent the filter or cause the classifying mechanism to fail to properly understanding the request. That may allow the attacker to slip malicious data past the content filter and/or possibly cause the application to route the request incorrectly. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser or an automated tool, an attacker follows all public links and actions on a web site. They record all the links, the forms, the resources accessed and all other potential entry-points for the web application. [Probe entry points to locate vulnerabilities] The attacker uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and injects various Unicode encoded payloads to determine if an entry point actually represents a vulnerability with insufficient validation logic and to characterize the extent to which the vulnerability can be exploited. |
High |
| 72 |
URL Encoding
This attack targets the encoding of the URL. An adversary can take advantage of the multiple way of encoding an URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. [Survey web application for URLs with parameters] Using a browser, an automated tool or by inspecting the application, an adversary records all URLs that contain parameters. [Probe URLs to locate vulnerabilities] The adversary uses the URLs gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and tests parameters with different encodings of special characters to see how the web application will handle them. [Inject special characters into URL parameters] Using the information gathered in the "Experiment" phase, the adversary injects special characters into the URL using URL encoding. This can lead to path traversal, cross-site scripting, SQL injection, etc. |
High |
| 76 |
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible. [Fingerprinting of the operating system] In order to create a valid file injection, the attacker needs to know what the underlying OS is so that the proper file seperator is used. [Survey the Application to Identify User-controllable Inputs] The attacker surveys the target application to identify all user-controllable inputs, possibly as a valid and authenticated user [Vary inputs, looking for malicious results] Depending on whether the application being exploited is a remote or local one, the attacker crafts the appropriate malicious input containing the path of the targeted file or other file system control syntax to be passed to the application [Manipulate files accessible by the application] The attacker may steal information or directly manipulate files (delete, copy, flush, etc.) |
Very High |
| 78 |
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding
This attack targets the use of the backslash in alternate encoding. An adversary can provide a backslash as a leading character and causes a parser to believe that the next character is special. This is called an escape. By using that trick, the adversary tries to exploit alternate ways to encode the same character which leads to filter problems and opens avenues to attack. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser, an automated tool or by inspecting the application, an adversary records all entry points to the application. [Probe entry points to locate vulnerabilities] The adversary uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and attempts to escape multiple different special characters using a backslash. [Manipulate input] Once the adversary determines how to bypass filters that filter out special characters using an escaped slash, they will manipulate the user input in a way that is not intended by the application. |
High |
| 79 |
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding
This attack targets the encoding of the Slash characters. An adversary would try to exploit common filtering problems related to the use of the slashes characters to gain access to resources on the target host. Directory-driven systems, such as file systems and databases, typically use the slash character to indicate traversal between directories or other container components. For murky historical reasons, PCs (and, as a result, Microsoft OSs) choose to use a backslash, whereas the UNIX world typically makes use of the forward slash. The schizophrenic result is that many MS-based systems are required to understand both forms of the slash. This gives the adversary many opportunities to discover and abuse a number of common filtering problems. The goal of this pattern is to discover server software that only applies filters to one version, but not the other. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser, an automated tool or by inspecting the application, an adversary records all entry points to the application. [Probe entry points to locate vulnerabilities] The adversary uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and looks for areas where user input is used to access resources on the target host. The adversary attempts different encodings of slash characters to bypass input filters. [Traverse application directories] Once the adversary determines how to bypass filters that filter out slash characters, they will manipulate the user input to include slashes in order to traverse directories and access resources that are not intended for the user. |
High |
| 8 |
Buffer Overflow in an API Call
This attack targets libraries or shared code modules which are vulnerable to buffer overflow attacks. An adversary who has knowledge of known vulnerable libraries or shared code can easily target software that makes use of these libraries. All clients that make use of the code library thus become vulnerable by association. This has a very broad effect on security across a system, usually affecting more than one software process. [Identify target application] The adversary, with knowledge of vulnerable libraries or shared code modules, identifies a target application or program that makes use of these. [Find injection vector] The adversary attempts to use the API, and if they can they send a large amount of data to see if the buffer overflow attack really does work. [Craft overflow content] The adversary crafts the content to be injected based on their knowledge of the vulnerability and their desired outcome. If the intent is to simply cause the software to crash, the content need only consist of an excessive quantity of random data. If the intent is to leverage the overflow for execution of arbitrary code, the adversary will craft a set of content that not only overflows the targeted buffer but does so in such a way that the overwritten return address is replaced with one of the adversaries' choosing which points to code injected by the adversary. [Overflow the buffer] Using the API as the injection vector, the adversary injects the crafted overflow content into the buffer. |
High |
| 80 |
Using UTF-8 Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
This attack is a specific variation on leveraging alternate encodings to bypass validation logic. This attack leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input in UTF-8 and submit it to applications not expecting or effective at validating this encoding standard making input filtering difficult. UTF-8 (8-bit UCS/Unicode Transformation Format) is a variable-length character encoding for Unicode. Legal UTF-8 characters are one to four bytes long. However, early version of the UTF-8 specification got some entries wrong (in some cases it permitted overlong characters). UTF-8 encoders are supposed to use the "shortest possible" encoding, but naive decoders may accept encodings that are longer than necessary. According to the RFC 3629, a particularly subtle form of this attack can be carried out against a parser which performs security-critical validity checks against the UTF-8 encoded form of its input, but interprets certain illegal octet sequences as characters. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser or an automated tool, an attacker follows all public links and actions on a web site. They record all the links, the forms, the resources accessed and all other potential entry-points for the web application. [Probe entry points to locate vulnerabilities] The attacker uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and injects various UTF-8 encoded payloads to determine if an entry point actually represents a vulnerability with insufficient validation logic and to characterize the extent to which the vulnerability can be exploited. |
High |
| 83 |
XPath Injection
An attacker can craft special user-controllable input consisting of XPath expressions to inject the XML database and bypass authentication or glean information that they normally would not be able to. XPath Injection enables an attacker to talk directly to the XML database, thus bypassing the application completely. XPath Injection results from the failure of an application to properly sanitize input used as part of dynamic XPath expressions used to query an XML database. [Survey the target] Using a browser or an automated tool, an adversary records all instances of user-controllable input used to contruct XPath queries. [Determine the tructure of queries] Using manual or automated means, test inputs found for XPath weaknesses. [Inject content into XPath query] Craft malicious content containing XPath expressions that is not validated by the application and is executed as part of the XPath queries. |
High |
| 84 |
XQuery Injection
This attack utilizes XQuery to probe and attack server systems; in a similar manner that SQL Injection allows an attacker to exploit SQL calls to RDBMS, XQuery Injection uses improperly validated data that is passed to XQuery commands to traverse and execute commands that the XQuery routines have access to. XQuery injection can be used to enumerate elements on the victim's environment, inject commands to the local host, or execute queries to remote files and data sources. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser or an automated tool, an attacker follows all public links and actions on a web site. They record all the links, the forms, the resources accessed and all other potential entry-points for the web application. [Determine user-controllable input susceptible to injection] Determine the user-controllable input susceptible to injection. For each user-controllable input that the attacker suspects is vulnerable to XQL injection, attempt to inject characters that have special meaning in XQL. The goal is to create an XQL query with an invalid syntax. [Information Disclosure] The attacker crafts and injects an XQuery payload which is acted on by an XQL query leading to inappropriate disclosure of information. [Manipulate the data in the XML database] The attacker crafts and injects an XQuery payload which is acted on by an XQL query leading to modification of application data. |
Very High |
| 9 |
Buffer Overflow in Local Command-Line Utilities
This attack targets command-line utilities available in a number of shells. An adversary can leverage a vulnerability found in a command-line utility to escalate privilege to root. [Identify target system] The adversary first finds a target system that they want to gain elevated priveleges on. This could be a system they already have some level of access to or a system that they will gain unauthorized access at a lower privelege using some other means. [Find injection vector] The adversary identifies command line utilities exposed by the target host that contain buffer overflow vulnerabilites. The adversary likely knows which utilities have these vulnerabilities and what the effected versions are, so they will also obtain version numbers for these utilities. [Craft overflow command] Once the adversary has found a vulnerable utility, they will use their knownledge of the vulnerabilty to create the command that will exploit the buffer overflow. [Overflow the buffer] Using the injection vector, the adversary executes the crafted command, gaining elevated priveleges on the machine. |
High |
| 109 |
Object Relational Mapping Injection
An attacker leverages a weakness present in the database access layer code generated with an Object Relational Mapping (ORM) tool or a weakness in the way that a developer used a persistence framework to inject their own SQL commands to be executed against the underlying database. The attack here is similar to plain SQL injection, except that the application does not use JDBC to directly talk to the database, but instead it uses a data access layer generated by an ORM tool or framework (e.g. Hibernate). While most of the time code generated by an ORM tool contains safe access methods that are immune to SQL injection, sometimes either due to some weakness in the generated code or due to the fact that the developer failed to use the generated access methods properly, SQL injection is still possible. [Determine Persistence Framework Used] An attacker tries to determine what persistence framework is used by the application in order to leverage a weakness in the generated data access layer code or a weakness in a way that the data access layer may have been used by the developer. [Probe for ORM Injection vulnerabilities] The attacker injects ORM syntax into user-controllable data inputs of the application to determine if it is possible modify data query structure and content. [Perform SQL Injection through the generated data access layer] An attacker proceeds to exploit a weakness in the generated data access methods that does not properly separate control plane from the data plan, or potentially a particular way in which developer might have misused the generated code, to modify the structure of the executed SQL queries and/or inject entirely new SQL queries. |
High |
| 110 |
SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter Tampering
An attacker modifies the parameters of the SOAP message that is sent from the service consumer to the service provider to initiate a SQL injection attack. On the service provider side, the SOAP message is parsed and parameters are not properly validated before being used to access a database in a way that does not use parameter binding, thus enabling the attacker to control the structure of the executed SQL query. This pattern describes a SQL injection attack with the delivery mechanism being a SOAP message. [Detect Incorrect SOAP Parameter Handling] The attacker tampers with the SOAP message parameters and looks for indications that the tampering caused a change in behavior of the targeted application. [Probe for SQL Injection vulnerability] The attacker injects SQL syntax into vulnerable SOAP parameters identified during the Explore phase to search for unfiltered execution of the SQL syntax in a query. [Inject SQL via SOAP Parameters] The attacker injects SQL via SOAP parameters identified as vulnerable during Explore phase to launch a first or second order SQL injection attack. |
Very High |
| 470 |
Expanding Control over the Operating System from the Database
An attacker is able to leverage access gained to the database to read / write data to the file system, compromise the operating system, create a tunnel for accessing the host machine, and use this access to potentially attack other machines on the same network as the database machine. Traditionally SQL injections attacks are viewed as a way to gain unauthorized read access to the data stored in the database, modify the data in the database, delete the data, etc. However, almost every data base management system (DBMS) system includes facilities that if compromised allow an attacker complete access to the file system, operating system, and full access to the host running the database. The attacker can then use this privileged access to launch subsequent attacks. These facilities include dropping into a command shell, creating user defined functions that can call system level libraries present on the host machine, stored procedures, etc. The adversary identifies a database management system running on a machine they would like to gain control over, or on a network they want to move laterally through. The adversary goes about the typical steps of an SQL injection and determines if an injection is possible. Once the Adversary determines that an SQL injection is possible, they must ensure that the requirements for the attack are met. These are a high privileged session user and batched query support. This is done in similar ways to discovering if an SQL injection is possible. If the requirements are met, based on the database management system that is running, the adversary will find or create user defined functions (UDFs) that can be loaded as DLLs. An example of a DLL can be found at https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/tree/master/data/exploits/mysql In order to load the DLL, the adversary must first find the path to the plugin directory. The command to achieve this is different based on the type of DBMS, but for MySQL, this can be achieved by running the command "select @@plugin_dir" The DLL is then moved into the previously found plugin directory so that the contained functions can be loaded. This can be done in a number of ways; loading from a network share, writing the entire hex encoded string to a file in the plugin directory, or loading the DLL into a table and then into a file. An example using MySQL to load the hex string is as follows. select 0x4d5a9000... into dump file "{plugin directory}\udf.dll"; Once the DLL is in the plugin directory, a command is then run to load the UDFs. An example of this in MySQL is "create function sys_eval returns string soname 'udf.dll';" The function sys_eval is specific to the example DLL listed above. Once the adversary has loaded the desired function(s), they will use these to execute arbitrary commands on the compromised system. This is done through a simple select command to the loaded UDF. For example: "select sys_eval('dir');". Because the prerequisite to this attack is that the database session user is a super user, this means that the adversary will be able to execute commands with elevated privileges. |
Very High |
| 66 |
SQL Injection
This attack exploits target software that constructs SQL statements based on user input. An attacker crafts input strings so that when the target software constructs SQL statements based on the input, the resulting SQL statement performs actions other than those the application intended. SQL Injection results from failure of the application to appropriately validate input. [Survey application] The attacker first takes an inventory of the functionality exposed by the application. [Determine user-controllable input susceptible to injection] Determine the user-controllable input susceptible to injection. For each user-controllable input that the attacker suspects is vulnerable to SQL injection, attempt to inject characters that have special meaning in SQL (such as a single quote character, a double quote character, two hyphens, a parenthesis, etc.). The goal is to create a SQL query with an invalid syntax. [Experiment with SQL Injection vulnerabilities] After determining that a given input is vulnerable to SQL Injection, hypothesize what the underlying query looks like. Iteratively try to add logic to the query to extract information from the database, or to modify or delete information in the database. [Exploit SQL Injection vulnerability] After refining and adding various logic to SQL queries, craft and execute the underlying SQL query that will be used to attack the target system. The goal is to reveal, modify, and/or delete database data, using the knowledge obtained in the previous step. This could entail crafting and executing multiple SQL queries if a denial of service attack is the intent. |
High |
