Compound · Complex

CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

CWE-352 · Compound Level ·10 CVEs ·7 Mitigations

Description

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

CSRF Attacks Guide

Read our in-depth guide on exploiting and mitigating this weakness

Potential Impact

Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Non-Repudiation, Access Control

Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Bypass Protection Mechanism, Read Application Data, Modify Application Data, DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart

Demonstrative Examples

This example PHP code attempts to secure the form submission process by validating that the user submitting the form has a valid session. A CSRF attack would not be prevented by this countermeasure because the attacker forges a request through the user's web browser in which a valid session already exists.
The following HTML is intended to allow a user to update a profile.
Bad
<form action="/url/profile.php" method="post"><input type="text" name="firstname"/><input type="text" name="lastname"/><br/><input type="text" name="email"/><input type="submit" name="submit" value="Update"/></form>
profile.php contains the following code.
Bad
// initiate the session in order to validate sessions
                     session_start();
                     
                     //if the session is registered to a valid user then allow update
                     
                     if (! session_is_registered("username")) {
                        
                           echo "invalid session detected!";
                           
                           // Redirect user to login page
                           [...]
                           exit;
                     }
                     
                     // The user session is valid, so process the request
                     
                     
                     // and update the information
                     
                     update_profile();
                     function update_profile {
                        
                           
                           // read in the data from $POST and send an update
                           
                           
                           // to the database
                           SendUpdateToDatabase($_SESSION['username'], $_POST['email']);[...]echo "Your profile has been successfully updated.";
                     }
This code may look protected since it checks for a valid session. However, CSRF attacks can be staged from virtually any tag or HTML construct, including image tags, links, embed or object tags, or other attributes that load background images.
The attacker can then host code that will silently change the username and email address of any user that visits the page while remaining logged in to the target web application. The code might be an innocent-looking web page such as:
Attack
<SCRIPT>function SendAttack () {form.email = "[email protected]";
                        // send to profile.php
                        form.submit();}</SCRIPT>
                     <BODY onload="javascript:SendAttack();">
                     <form action="http://victim.example.com/profile.php" id="form" method="post"><input type="hidden" name="firstname" value="Funny"><input type="hidden" name="lastname" value="Joke"><br/><input type="hidden" name="email"></form>
Notice how the form contains hidden fields, so when it is loaded into the browser, the user will not notice it. Because SendAttack() is defined in the body's onload attribute, it will be automatically called when the victim loads the web page.
Assuming that the user is already logged in to victim.example.com, profile.php will see that a valid user session has been established, then update the email address to the attacker's own address. At this stage, the user's identity has been compromised, and messages sent through this profile could be sent to the attacker's address.

Mitigations & Prevention

Architecture and Design

Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]

Implementation

Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.

Architecture and Design

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). [REF-332]

Architecture and Design

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.

Architecture and Design

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 a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the

Architecture and Design

Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.

Implementation

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.

Detection Methods

  • Manual Analysis High — This weakness can be detected using tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. Specifically, manual analysis can be useful for finding
  • Automated Static Analysis Limited — CSRF is currently difficult to detect reliably using automated techniques. This is because each application has its own implicit security policy that dictates which requests can be influenced by an outsider and automatically performed on behalf of a user, versus which requests require strong confide
  • Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode SOAR Partial — According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
  • Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode SOAR Partial — According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
  • Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation High — According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
  • Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation High — According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Real-World CVE Examples

CVE IDDescription
CVE-2004-1703Add user accounts via a URL in an img tag
CVE-2004-1995Add user accounts via a URL in an img tag
CVE-2004-1967Arbitrary code execution by specifying the code in a crafted img tag or URL
CVE-2004-1842Gain administrative privileges via a URL in an img tag
CVE-2005-1947Delete a victim's information via a URL or an img tag
CVE-2005-2059Change another user's settings via a URL or an img tag
CVE-2005-1674Perform actions as administrator via a URL or an img tag
CVE-2009-3520modify password for the administrator
CVE-2009-3022CMS allows modification of configuration via CSRF attack against the administrator
CVE-2009-3759web interface allows password changes or stopping a virtual machine via CSRF

Taxonomy Mappings

  • PLOVER: — Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
  • OWASP Top Ten 2007: A5 — Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
  • WASC: 9 — Cross-site Request Forgery

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CWE-352?

CWE-352 (Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)) is a software weakness identified by MITRE's Common Weakness Enumeration. It is classified as a Compound-level weakness. The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

How can CWE-352 be exploited?

Attackers can exploit CWE-352 (Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)) to gain privileges or assume identity, bypass protection mechanism, read application data, modify application data, dos: crash, exit, or restart. This weakness is typically introduced during the Architecture and Design phase of software development.

How do I prevent CWE-352?

Key mitigations include: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF p

What is the severity of CWE-352?

CWE-352 is classified as a Compound-level weakness (Complex abstraction). It has been observed in 10 real-world CVEs.