Difference between revisions of "Injection problem"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
(Consequences)
 
(8 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Template:SecureSoftware}}
 
  
==Overview==
+
Last revision (mm/dd/yy): '''{{REVISIONMONTH}}/{{REVISIONDAY}}/{{REVISIONYEAR}}'''
  
Injection problems span a wide range of instantiations. The basic form of this flaw involves the injection of control-plane data into the data-plane in order to alter the control flow of the process.
 
  
==Consequences ==
+
==Description==
  
* Confidentiality: Many injection attacks involve the disclosure of important information - in terms of both data sensitivity and usefulness in further exploitation
+
Injection problems span a wide range of instantiations. The basic form of this flaw involves the injection of control-plane data into the data-plane in order to alter the control flow of the process.
  
* Authentication: In some cases injectable code controls authentication; this may lead to remote vulnerability
+
'''Consequences'''
  
* Access Control: Injection attacks are characterized by the ability to significantly change the flow of a given process, and in some cases, to the execution of arbitrary code.
+
* Confidentiality: Many injection attacks involve the disclosure of important information - in terms of both data sensitivity and usefulness in further exploitation
 +
* Authentication: In some cases injectable code controls authentication; this may lead to remote vulnerability
 +
* Access Control: Injection attacks are characterized by the ability to significantly change the flow of a given process, and in some cases, to the execution of arbitrary code.
 +
* Integrity: Data injection attacks lead to loss of data integrity in nearly all cases as the control-plane data injected is always incidental to data recall or writing.
 +
* Accountability: Often the actions performed by injected control code are unlogged.
  
* Integrity: Data injection attacks lead to loss of data integrity in nearly all cases as the control-plane data injected is always incidental to data recall or writing.
+
'''Exposure period'''
  
* Accountability: Often the actions performed by injected control code are unlogged.
+
* Requirements specification: A language might be chosen which is not subject to these issues.
 +
* Implementation: Many logic errors can contribute to these issues.
  
==Exposure period ==
+
'''Platform'''
  
* Requirements specification: A language might be chosen which is not subject to these issues.
+
* Languages: C, C++, Assembly, SQL
 +
* Platforms: Any
  
* Implementation: Many logic errors can contribute to these issues.
+
'''Required resources'''
  
==Platform ==
+
Any
  
* Languages: C, C++, Assembly, SQL
+
'''Severity'''
  
* Platforms: Any
+
High
  
==Required resources ==
+
'''Likelihood of exploit'''
  
Any
+
Very High
  
==Severity ==
+
Injection problems encompass a wide variety of issues - all mitigated in very different ways. For this reason, the most effective way to discuss these flaws is to note the distinct features which classify them as injection flaws.
  
High
+
The most important issue to note is that all injection problems share one thing in common - i.e., they allow for the injection of control plane data into the user-controlled data plane. This means that the execution of the process may be altered by sending code in through legitimate data channels, using no other mechanism. While buffer overflows, and many other flaws, involve the use of some further issue to gain execution, injection problems need only for the data to be parsed.
  
==Likelihood  of exploit ==
+
The most classing instantiations of this category of flaw are SQL injection and format string vulnerabilities.
  
Very High
 
  
==Avoidance and mitigation ==
+
==Risk Factors==
  
* Requirements specification: A language might be chosen which is not subject to these issues.
+
TBD
  
* Implementation: As so many possible implementations of this flaw exist, it is best to simply be aware of the flaw and work to ensure that all control characters entered in data are subject to black-list style parsing.
+
==Examples==
  
==Discussion ==
+
Injection problems describe a large subset of problems with varied instantiations. For an example of one of these problems, see the section [[Format String]].
  
Injection problems encompass a wide variety of issues - all mitigated in very different ways. For this reason, the most effective way to discuss these flaws is to note the distinct features which classify them as injection flaws.
+
==Related [[Attacks]]==
  
The most important issue to note is that all injection problems share one thing in common - i.e., they allow for the injection of control plane data into the user-controlled data plane. This means that the execution of the process may be altered by sending code in through legitimate data channels, using no other mechanism. While buffer overflows, and many other flaws, involve the use of some further issue to gain execution, injection problems need only for the data to be parsed.
+
* [[Attack 1]]
 +
* [[Attack 2]]
  
The most classing instantiations of this category of flaw are SQL injection and format string vulnerabilities.
 
  
==Examples ==
+
==Related [[Vulnerabilities]]==
 +
 
 +
* [[SQL injection]]
 +
* [[Format String]]
 +
* [[Command injection]]
 +
* [[Log injection]]
 +
* [[Reflection injection]]
 +
* [[Interpreter Injection]]
  
Injection problems describe a large subset of problems with varied instantiations. For an example of one of these problems, see the section [[Format string problem]].
 
  
==Related problems ==
+
==Related [[Controls]]==
  
* [[SQL injection]]
+
* Requirements specification: A language might be chosen which is not subject to these issues.
 +
* Implementation: As so many possible implementations of this flaw exist, it is best to simply be aware of the flaw and work to ensure that all control characters entered in data are subject to black-list style parsing.
  
* [[Format string problem]]
 
  
* [[Command injection]]
+
==Related [[Technical Impacts]]==
  
* [[Log injection]]
+
* [[Technical Impact 1]]
 +
* [[Technical Impact 2]]
  
* [[Reflection injection]]
 
  
*      [[Interpreter Injection]]
+
==References==
  
[[Category:Vulnerability]]
+
TBD
  
[[Category:Input Validation]]
 
  
[[Category:OWASP_CLASP_Project]]
+
__NOTOC__

Latest revision as of 13:05, 11 April 2009

Last revision (mm/dd/yy): 04/11/2009


Description

Injection problems span a wide range of instantiations. The basic form of this flaw involves the injection of control-plane data into the data-plane in order to alter the control flow of the process.

Consequences

  • Confidentiality: Many injection attacks involve the disclosure of important information - in terms of both data sensitivity and usefulness in further exploitation
  • Authentication: In some cases injectable code controls authentication; this may lead to remote vulnerability
  • Access Control: Injection attacks are characterized by the ability to significantly change the flow of a given process, and in some cases, to the execution of arbitrary code.
  • Integrity: Data injection attacks lead to loss of data integrity in nearly all cases as the control-plane data injected is always incidental to data recall or writing.
  • Accountability: Often the actions performed by injected control code are unlogged.

Exposure period

  • Requirements specification: A language might be chosen which is not subject to these issues.
  • Implementation: Many logic errors can contribute to these issues.

Platform

  • Languages: C, C++, Assembly, SQL
  • Platforms: Any

Required resources

Any

Severity

High

Likelihood of exploit

Very High

Injection problems encompass a wide variety of issues - all mitigated in very different ways. For this reason, the most effective way to discuss these flaws is to note the distinct features which classify them as injection flaws.

The most important issue to note is that all injection problems share one thing in common - i.e., they allow for the injection of control plane data into the user-controlled data plane. This means that the execution of the process may be altered by sending code in through legitimate data channels, using no other mechanism. While buffer overflows, and many other flaws, involve the use of some further issue to gain execution, injection problems need only for the data to be parsed.

The most classing instantiations of this category of flaw are SQL injection and format string vulnerabilities.


Risk Factors

TBD

Examples

Injection problems describe a large subset of problems with varied instantiations. For an example of one of these problems, see the section Format String.

Related Attacks


Related Vulnerabilities


Related Controls

  • Requirements specification: A language might be chosen which is not subject to these issues.
  • Implementation: As so many possible implementations of this flaw exist, it is best to simply be aware of the flaw and work to ensure that all control characters entered in data are subject to black-list style parsing.


Related Technical Impacts


References

TBD