Các cách xuất hiện
Implementation : REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.
Nền tảng áp dụng
Ngôn ngữ
Lớp: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined)
Hậu quả phổ biến
| Phạm vi |
Tác động |
Khả năng xảy ra |
| Integrity | Modify Application Data | |
Ví dụ đã quan sát
| Tài liệu tham khảo |
Mô tả |
| CRLF injection enables spam proxy (add mail headers) using email address or name. |
| CRLF injection in API function arguments modify headers for outgoing requests. |
| Spoofed entries in web server log file via carriage returns |
| Chain: inject fake log entries with fake timestamps using CRLF injection |
| Chain: Application accepts CRLF in an object ID, allowing HTTP response splitting. |
| Chain: HTTP response splitting via CRLF in parameter related to URL. |
Các biện pháp giảm thiểu tiềm năng
Phases : Implementation
Avoid using CRLF as a special sequence.
Phases : Implementation
Appropriately filter or quote CRLF sequences in user-controlled input.
Phương pháp phát hiện
Automated Static Analysis
Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)
Hiệu quả : High
Ghi chú ánh xạ lỗ hổng
Lý do : This CWE entry is at the Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.
Bình luận : Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.
Mẫu tấn công liên quan
| ID CAPEC |
Tên mẫu tấn công |
| CAPEC-15 |
Command Delimiters
An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on. |
| CAPEC-81 |
Web Server Logs Tampering
Web Logs Tampering attacks involve an attacker injecting, deleting or otherwise tampering with the contents of web logs typically for the purposes of masking other malicious behavior. Additionally, writing malicious data to log files may target jobs, filters, reports, and other agents that process the logs in an asynchronous attack pattern. This pattern of attack is similar to "Log Injection-Tampering-Forging" except that in this case, the attack is targeting the logs of the web server and not the application. |
Tài liệu tham khảo
REF-928
CRLF Injection
Ulf Harnhammar.
http://marc.info/?l=bugtraq&m=102088154213630&w=2 REF-1456
CRLF Injection
Imperva.
https://www.imperva.com/learn/application-security/crlf-injection// REF-1457
CRLF injection
R00tendo.
https://medium.com/@R00tendo/crlf-injection-ae26521c5e4c
Gửi
| Tên |
Tổ chức |
Ngày |
Ngày phát hành |
Version |
| PLOVER |
|
2006-07-19 +00:00 |
2006-07-19 +00:00 |
Draft 3 |
Sửa đổi
| Tên |
Tổ chức |
Ngày |
Bình luận |
| Sean Eidemiller |
Cigital |
2008-07-01 +00:00 |
added/updated demonstrative examples |
| Eric Dalci |
Cigital |
2008-07-01 +00:00 |
updated Time_of_Introduction |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2008-09-08 +00:00 |
updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings, Weakness_Ordinalities |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2009-03-10 +00:00 |
updated References |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2009-05-27 +00:00 |
updated Name |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2009-10-29 +00:00 |
updated Other_Notes |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2009-12-28 +00:00 |
updated Likelihood_of_Exploit |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2010-02-16 +00:00 |
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Taxonomy_Mappings |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2010-04-05 +00:00 |
updated Related_Attack_Patterns |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2010-06-21 +00:00 |
updated Description, Name |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2011-03-29 +00:00 |
updated Description |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2011-06-01 +00:00 |
updated Common_Consequences |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2012-05-11 +00:00 |
updated Relationships |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2012-10-30 +00:00 |
updated Potential_Mitigations |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2014-07-30 +00:00 |
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2015-12-07 +00:00 |
updated Relationships |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2017-11-08 +00:00 |
updated Applicable_Platforms, Causal_Nature, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Modes_of_Introduction, References, Relationships |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2019-06-20 +00:00 |
updated Relationships |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2020-02-24 +00:00 |
updated Relationships |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2021-10-28 +00:00 |
updated Relationships |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2022-04-28 +00:00 |
updated Research_Gaps |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2023-01-31 +00:00 |
updated Description |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2023-04-27 +00:00 |
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2023-06-29 +00:00 |
updated Mapping_Notes |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2024-11-19 +00:00 |
updated Demonstrative_Examples |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2025-04-03 +00:00 |
updated Diagram, References |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2025-12-11 +00:00 |
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships |
| CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2026-10-28 +00:00 |
updated Alternate_Terms, Name |