During vulnerability assessment or penetration testing, identifying the input vectors of the target application is a primordial step. Sometimes, when dealing with Web application testing, verification routines related to SQL injection flaws discovery are restricted to the GET and POST variables as the unique inputs vectors ever.
X Forwarded for SQL injection
We can consider the HTTP Cookies, when are stored in databases for sessions identification, as the first potential HTTP variables which should be tested. We will see next in an example of Cookie based SQL injection. There are also other HTTP headers related to the application.
After enumerating about 20 Tables Names I decided to try again my luck with SQLmap. As several tables where discovered, one of them was used to help sqlmap understand the injection point and continue the attack. Payload used in sqlmap:
Sometimes manual exploitation - especially blind, time based attacks - may seem tedious. As shown, it is also sometimes difficult to automate a detected injection attack. The best thing that can be done on such cases is to manually attack until all the missing information for the automation of the attack are collected.
There is blind sql injection in X-Forwarded-For header in the code above.I tried different payloads from OWASP Testing Guide and read this course on Pentesterlab but I still find it impossible to exploit this.
As you can see, the whole query including your injection will return true if the MySQL version is 5, and false otherwise. So depending on what happens - the script dies or it doesn't - you know what version MySQL is.
Every HTTP header is a potential vector for exploiting classic server-side vulnerabilities, and the Host header is no exception. For example, you should try the usual SQL injection probing techniques via the Host header. If the value of the header is passed into a SQL statement, this could be exploitable.
We quickly find out that the search function is vulnerable to SQL injections. Both boolean and union-based. The payload ' or '1'='1 outputs all the products and we can output some database information with ' union select 1, database(), user(),1,1,1-- -:
Proxies are in charge of transmitting data between two systems. The load balancer is the mechanism in charge of the proxy. In other words, just one system communicates with both the user and the application server. In terms of network traffic, web A or web B servers always communicate with the load balancer's IP address. The same may be said for users. For security professionals, load balancers cause serious problems in time-based SQL injection attacks. But the main focus here is IP spoofing.
First and foremost, the tester will need to identify data entries before attempting an attack. Despite the fact that SQL injection is among today's most popular security issues, all fields are not necessary vulnerable. For this reason, you must be aware of all possible ways malicious input could be submitted to an application in order to find one where input validation is insufficient.
When the browser sends a request to a web server, it creates an HTTP request containing information such as HTTP headers. The most popular are User-Agent, Referer, X-Forwarded-For and Accept-Charset. Information contained in headers is frequently used to log details about the visitor in the database. If the webpage creates a dynamic query with those values, it could be vulnerable to SQL injection.
This analyzer ensures that your application is not vulnerable to host injection attacks. In this attack, the attacker can change the host of a signed URL using the X-Forwarded-Host or the Host header. This would allow an attacker to generate a malicious password reset email with a link to a website controlled by the attacker.
This video (opens new window) shows a live demo of the vulnerability. Note that password reset poisoning is just one of the possible attacks. Other attacks that arise from host header injection include web cache poisoning, bypassing authentication, SSRF and virtual host brute-forcing. You may learn more about this here (opens new window).
After testing, the OrderID user is controllable. The global search for OrderID shows that OrderID is processed into a pure string by the function method, and there is no room for injection, so we choose another way
Attackers sometimes insert malicious SQL code into web requests in an effort to extract data from your database. To allow or block web requests that appear to contain malicious SQL code, create one or more SQL injection match conditions. A SQL injection match condition identifies the part of web requests, such as the URI path or the query string, that you want AWS WAF Classic to inspect. Later in the process, when you create a web ACL, you specify whether to allow or block requests that appear to contain malicious SQL code.
When you create SQL injection match conditions, you specify filters, which indicate the part of web requests that you want AWS WAF Classic to inspect for malicious SQL code, such as the URI or the query string. You can add more than one filter to a SQL injection match condition, or you can create a separate condition for each filter. Here's how each configuration affects AWS WAF Classic behavior:
For example, suppose you create one SQL injection match condition, and the condition contains two filters. One filter instructs AWS WAF Classic to inspect the URI for malicious SQL code, and the other instructs AWS WAF Classic to inspect the query string. AWS WAF Classic allows or blocks requests if they appear to contain malicious SQL code either in the URI or in the query string.
If you want to delete a SQL injection match condition, you need to first delete all filtersin the condition and remove the condition from all the rules that are using it, asdescribed in the following procedure.
Identifying the input vectors of the target application is a primordial step during vulnerability assessment or penetration testing. This article explains how to people can attempt SQL injection in your database through HTTP Headers and discusses which vulnerability scanners tools to choose for testing SQL injection.
As a proxy, you should consider whether you expect to be receiving these headersin your requests. You will only want that if you are expecting requests to beforwarded from another proxy, and then you should make sure the particularrequest came from your proxy by validating the source IP of the connection.As untrusted input, you cannot trust any headers from proxies not under yourcontrol.
In other situations, SQL injection can be used to extract data from a database. In much the same way that it is possible to get code execution through template injection, it is possible to combine commands in the SQL engine to get an applications to dump information about itself that is not meant to be seen, or the entire database. This is the kind of exploit that you read about in the news from time to time.
If I had parameterized the SELECT statement, the injection would not work, or at least would not work without a lot more effort. Every language has best practice guides for how to do parameterized SQL statements to protect against SQL injection. Stored procedures and functions are also useful when implemented correctly.
Once secure code is written the next step in the defense is going to be logging and paying attention to what is going on in the logs. As you remember, I used a time-based SQL injection attack. I artificially increased the time it took for the page to load. The response time for a request is usually included in the default web server access logs. Measuring and tracking the time it takes for a page to respond, would allow an analyst to identify that an attack was going on, and do something about it. Good application logging will help pinpoint what part of the page is being attacked, and how to correct the problem.
So I returned back to this challenge after some break and started looking into time-based SQL injection in the X-Forwarded-For header. It turns out, we can run stacked queries here. And the reason why we can run stacked queries is super weird. I was randomly going through a few articles and I came across this stack overflow question.
In vulnerability assessment and penetration testing, it is the first step to determine the input vectors of the target application. This article explains how someone else is using an HTTP header to inject SQL into your database, and discusses which vulnerability scanner to test for SQL injection.
In vulnerability assessment and penetration testing, it is the first step to determine the input vectors of the target application. Sometimes, as a Web application test, test cases for SQL injection vulnerabilities are typically limited to special input vector get and post variables. What about the other HTTP header parameters? Aren't they the underlying SQL injection attack input vectors? How do we test these HTTP parameters, and what vulnerability scanners are used to find out the vulnerabilities of these applications?
It is evident in this diagram that 75% of the Web application scanners do not discover the vulnerability associated with the HTTP headers parameter. In addition, 70% of these scanners also incorrectly check for HTTP cookie vulnerabilities. These ratios fully illustrate the ability of these scanners to scan input vectors, not just simple explanations. Scoring for Get and post is reasonable, and some automated test tools can cause unsatisfactory results when processing HTTP headers as a SQL injection input vector.
When we keep the session ID in the database, we should first test the HTTP cookies as the primary potential HTTP variables. In the following we will see an instance of SQL injection using cookies. There are other HTTP header information associated with the application. 2ff7e9595c
Comentários