ZAP Scanning Report

A cross-site request forgery is an attack that involves forcing a victim to send an HTTP request to a target destination without their knowledge or intent in order to perform an action as the victim. The underlying cause is application functionality using predictable URL/form actions in a repeatable way. The nature of the attack is that CSRF exploits the trust that a web site has for a user. By contrast, cross-site scripting (XSS) exploits the trust that a user has for a web site. Like XSS, CSRF attacks are not necessarily cross-site, but they can be. Cross-site request forgery is also known as CSRF, XSRF, one-click attack, session riding, confused deputy, and sea surf.

CSRF attacks are effective in a number of situations, including:

* The victim has an active session on the target site.

* The victim is authenticated via HTTP auth on the target site.

* The victim is on the same local network as the target site.

CSRF has primarily been used to perform an action against a target site using the victim's privileges, but recent techniques have been discovered to disclose information by gaining access to the response. The risk of information disclosure is dramatically increased when the target site is vulnerable to XSS, because XSS can be used as a platform for CSRF, allowing the attack to operate within the bounds of the same-origin policy.

Phase: 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.

For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard.

Phase: Implementation

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

Phase: 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).

Note that this can be bypassed using XSS.

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.

Note that this can be bypassed using XSS.

Use the ESAPI Session Management control.

This control includes a component for CSRF.

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

Phase: 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.

http://projects.webappsec.org/Cross-Site-Request-Forgery

http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/352.html

Content Security Policy (CSP) is an added layer of security that helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS) and data injection attacks. These attacks are used for everything from data theft to site defacement or distribution of malware. CSP provides a set of standard HTTP headers that allow website owners to declare approved sources of content that browsers should be allowed to load on that page — covered types are JavaScript, CSS, HTML frames, fonts, images and embeddable objects such as Java applets, ActiveX, audio and video files.

Ensure that your web server, application server, load balancer, etc. is configured to set the Content-Security-Policy header, to achieve optimal browser support: "Content-Security-Policy" for Chrome 25+, Firefox 23+ and Safari 7+, "X-Content-Security-Policy" for Firefox 4.0+ and Internet Explorer 10+, and "X-WebKit-CSP" for Chrome 14+ and Safari 6+.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/CSP/Introducing_Content_Security_Policy

https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Content_Security_Policy_Cheat_Sheet.html

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSP/

http://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/content-security-policy/csp-specification.dev.html

http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/security/content-security-policy/

http://caniuse.com/#feat=contentsecuritypolicy

http://content-security-policy.com/

1 proxy server(s) were detected or fingerprinted. This information helps a potential attacker to determine

- A list of targets for an attack against the application.

- Potential vulnerabilities on the proxy servers that service the application.

- The presence or absence of any proxy-based components that might cause attacks against the application to be detected, prevented, or mitigated.

Disable the 'TRACE' method on the proxy servers, as well as the origin web/application server.

Disable the 'OPTIONS' method on the proxy servers, as well as the origin web/application server, if it is not required for other purposes, such as 'CORS' (Cross Origin Resource Sharing).

Configure the web and application servers with custom error pages, to prevent 'fingerprintable' product-specific error pages being leaked to the user in the event of HTTP errors, such as 'TRACK' requests for non-existent pages.

Configure all proxies, application servers, and web servers to prevent disclosure of the technology and version information in the 'Server' and 'X-Powered-By' HTTP response headers.

Using the TRACE, OPTIONS, and TRACK methods, the following proxy servers have been identified between OWASP ZAP and the application/web server:

- Unknown

The following web/application server has been identified:

- Unknown

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-5.1.2

The web server is configured to serve responses to ambiguous URLs in a manner that is likely to lead to confusion about the correct "relative path" for the URL. Resources (CSS, images, etc.) are also specified in the page response using relative, rather than absolute URLs. In an attack, if the web browser parses the "cross-content" response in a permissive manner, or can be tricked into permissively parsing the "cross-content" response, using techniques such as framing, then the web browser may be fooled into interpreting HTML as CSS (or other content types), leading to an XSS vulnerability.

Web servers and frameworks should be updated to be configured to not serve responses to ambiguous URLs in such a way that the relative path of such URLs could be mis-interpreted by components on either the client side, or server side.

Within the application, the correct use of the "<base>" HTML tag in the HTTP response will unambiguously specify the base URL for all relative URLs in the document.

Use the "Content-Type" HTTP response header to make it harder for the attacker to force the web browser to mis-interpret the content type of the response.

Use the "X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff" HTTP response header to prevent the web browser from "sniffing" the content type of the response.

Use a modern DOCTYPE such as "<!doctype html>" to prevent the page from being rendered in the web browser using "Quirks Mode", since this results in the content type being ignored by the web browser.

Specify the "X-Frame-Options" HTTP response header to prevent Quirks Mode from being enabled in the web browser using framing attacks.

No <base> tag was specified in the HTML <head> tag to define the location for relative URLs.

A Content Type of "text/html; charset=utf-8" was specified. If the web browser is employing strict parsing rules, this will prevent cross-content attacks from succeeding. Quirks Mode in the web browser would disable strict parsing.

No X-Frame-Options header was specified, so the page can be framed, and this can be used to enable Quirks Mode, allowing the specified Content Type to be bypassed.

http://www.thespanner.co.uk/2014/03/21/rpo/

https://hsivonen.fi/doctype/

http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_base.asp

No Anti-CSRF tokens were found in a HTML submission form.

A cross-site request forgery is an attack that involves forcing a victim to send an HTTP request to a target destination without their knowledge or intent in order to perform an action as the victim. The underlying cause is application functionality using predictable URL/form actions in a repeatable way. The nature of the attack is that CSRF exploits the trust that a web site has for a user. By contrast, cross-site scripting (XSS) exploits the trust that a user has for a web site. Like XSS, CSRF attacks are not necessarily cross-site, but they can be. Cross-site request forgery is also known as CSRF, XSRF, one-click attack, session riding, confused deputy, and sea surf.

CSRF attacks are effective in a number of situations, including:

* The victim has an active session on the target site.

* The victim is authenticated via HTTP auth on the target site.

* The victim is on the same local network as the target site.

CSRF has primarily been used to perform an action against a target site using the victim's privileges, but recent techniques have been discovered to disclose information by gaining access to the response. The risk of information disclosure is dramatically increased when the target site is vulnerable to XSS, because XSS can be used as a platform for CSRF, allowing the attack to operate within the bounds of the same-origin policy.

Phase: 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.

For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard.

Phase: Implementation

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

Phase: 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).

Note that this can be bypassed using XSS.

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.

Note that this can be bypassed using XSS.

Use the ESAPI Session Management control.

This control includes a component for CSRF.

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

Phase: 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.

No known Anti-CSRF token [anticsrf, CSRFToken, __RequestVerificationToken, csrfmiddlewaretoken, authenticity_token, OWASP_CSRFTOKEN, anoncsrf, csrf_token, _csrf, _csrfSecret, __csrf_magic, CSRF] was found in the following HTML form: [Form 1: "rd" ].

http://projects.webappsec.org/Cross-Site-Request-Forgery

http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/352.html

A cookie has been set without the SameSite attribute, which means that the cookie can be sent as a result of a 'cross-site' request. The SameSite attribute is an effective counter measure to cross-site request forgery, cross-site script inclusion, and timing attacks.

Ensure that the SameSite attribute is set to either 'lax' or ideally 'strict' for all cookies.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-cookie-same-site

The cache-control header has not been set properly or is missing, allowing the browser and proxies to cache content.

Whenever possible ensure the cache-control HTTP header is set with no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate.

https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Session_Management_Cheat_Sheet.html#web-content-caching

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Cache-Control

HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) is a web security policy mechanism whereby a web server declares that complying user agents (such as a web browser) are to interact with it using only secure HTTPS connections (i.e. HTTP layered over TLS/SSL). HSTS is an IETF standards track protocol and is specified in RFC 6797.

Ensure that your web server, application server, load balancer, etc. is configured to enforce Strict-Transport-Security.

https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security_Cheat_Sheet.html

https://owasp.org/www-community/Security_Headers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security

http://caniuse.com/stricttransportsecurity

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6797

The Anti-MIME-Sniffing header X-Content-Type-Options was not set to 'nosniff'. This allows older versions of Internet Explorer and Chrome to perform MIME-sniffing on the response body, potentially causing the response body to be interpreted and displayed as a content type other than the declared content type. Current (early 2014) and legacy versions of Firefox will use the declared content type (if one is set), rather than performing MIME-sniffing.

Ensure that the application/web server sets the Content-Type header appropriately, and that it sets the X-Content-Type-Options header to 'nosniff' for all web pages.

If possible, ensure that the end user uses a standards-compliant and modern web browser that does not perform MIME-sniffing at all, or that can be directed by the web application/web server to not perform MIME-sniffing.

This issue still applies to error type pages (401, 403, 500, etc.) as those pages are often still affected by injection issues, in which case there is still concern for browsers sniffing pages away from their actual content type.

At "High" threshold this scan rule will not alert on client or server error responses.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/gg622941%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

https://owasp.org/www-community/Security_Headers

Repeated GET requests: drop a different cookie each time, followed by normal request with all cookies to stabilize session, compare responses against original baseline GET. This can reveal areas where cookie based authentication/attributes are not actually enforced.

Cookies that don't have expected effects can reveal flaws in application logic. In the worst case, this can reveal where authentication via cookie token(s) is not actually enforced.

These cookies affected the response:

These cookies did NOT affect the response: 4e2f052a85d89824d1855ef94e095b2b

http://projects.webappsec.org/Fingerprinting

A timestamp was disclosed by the application/web server - Unix

Manually confirm that the timestamp data is not sensitive, and that the data cannot be aggregated to disclose exploitable patterns.

49354634, which evaluates to: 1971-07-26 05:37:14

http://projects.webappsec.org/w/page/13246936/Information%20Leakage

Check for differences in response based on fuzzed User Agent (eg. mobile sites, access as a Search Engine Crawler). Compares the response statuscode and the hashcode of the response body with the original response.

https://owasp.org/wstg