DevelopSec

AppSec

by Leave a Comment

Proxying localhost on FireFox

When you think of application security testing, one of the most common tools is a web proxy. Whether it is Burp Suite from Portswigger, ZAP from OWASP, Fiddler, or Charles Proxy, a proxy is heavily used. From time to time, you may find yourself testing a locally running application. Outside of some test labs or local development, this isn’t really that common. But if you do find yourself testing a site on localhost, you may run into a roadblock in your browser. If you are using a recent version of FireFox, when you go into your preferences screen and click on the Network Settings “Settings” button, you might notice the following image:

DenyProxy

When configuring your proxy, there is a box to list exceptions to not proxy traffic for. In the old days, localhost used to be pre-populated in this box. However, that is not the case anymore. Instead, localhost is explicitly blocked from being proxied. You can see this in the highlighted area of the image above.

So how do you you proxy your localhost application? There are a few ways to handle this.

You could set up your hosts file to give a different name to your local website. In this case, you would access the application using your defined hostname, rather than “localhost”.

Another way to get around this would be to modify the about:config of Firefox and update the network.proxy.allow_hijacking_localhost property true as shown in the following image:

AllowHijacking

Once this change is made, it will update the network settings screen to no longer block localhost from proxying. The following image shows that this statement is no longer there:

AllowProxy

by Leave a Comment

Chrome is making some changes.. are you ready?

Last year, Chrome announced that it was making a change to default cookies to SameSite:Lax if there is no SameSite setting explicitly set. I wrote about this change last year (https://www.jardinesoftware.net/2019/10/28/samesite-by-default-in-2020/). This change could have an impact on some sites, so it is important that you test this out. The changes are supposed to start rolling out in February (this month). The linked post shows how to force these defaults in both FireFox and Chrome.

In addition to this, Chrome has announced that it is going to start blocking mixed-content downloads (https://blog.chromium.org/2020/02/protecting-users-from-insecure.html). In this case, they are starting in Chrome 83 (June 2020) with blocking executable file downloads (.exe, .apk) that are over HTTP but requested from an HTTPS site.

The issue at hand is that users are mislead into thinking the download is secure due to the requesting page indicating it is over HTTPS. There isn’t a way for them to clearly see that the request is insecure. The linked Chrome blog describes a timeline of how they will slowly block all mixed-content types.

For many sites this might not be a huge concern, but this is a good time to check your sites to determine if you have any type of mixed content and ways to mitigate this.

You can identify mixed content on your site by using the Javascript Console. It can be found under the Developer Tools in your browser. This will prompt a warning when it identifies mixed content. There may also be some scanners you can use that will crawl your site looking for mixed content.

To help mitigate this from a high level, you could implement CSP to upgrade insecure requests:

Content-Security-Policy: upgrade-insecure-requests

This can help by upgrading insecure requests, but it is not supported in all browsers. The following post goes into a lot of detail on mixed content and some ways to resolve it: https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/security/prevent-mixed-content/fixing-mixed-content

The increase in protections of the browsers can help reduce the overall threats, but always remember that it is the developer’s responsibility to implement the proper design and protections. Not all browsers are the same and you can’t rely on the browser to provide all the protections.

by Leave a Comment

Interesting Browser Difference

Update 8/16/19 – It appears that not long after I published this, Chrome sent an update that now mimics FireFox. In Chrome you now get a new tab that has a URL of “about:blank#blocked”.

When working on a recent test I noticed something pretty interesting when I had found what I thought was a Cross-Site Scripting vulnerability. I have posted previously on the ability to execute XSS when you control the HREF attribute of a link tag. This is done by setting a url to javascript:alert(9);. This might look like:

<a href=”javascript:alert(9);”>Click Me</a>

This is similar to the situation I had. However, when I was testing with FireFox, I found that the alert box was not appearing. Instead, when I clicked the link, it would open a new tab and the URL would be javascript:alert(9);. No Alert box. What gives??

So I could see the payload there, but it wouldn’t execute. I was confused. I decided to load up Chrome and see what happens there. To my surprise, although it is what I originally expected, the alert box was displayed.

It turns out, the link tag wasn’t as simple as the above example. Instead it looked more like this:

<a href=”javascript:alert(9);” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener no referrer”>Click Me</a>

After performing a little more testing, it appears that when the target and red attributes exist, Firefox opens a new tab instead of executing the specified JavaScript. I m not sure if this is a bug in how FireFox handles this scenario or not, but it does highlight an interesting point about differences with browsers.

In the event your testing runs across this same type of scenario, take the time to try different browsers to see if the results change.

by Leave a Comment

What is the difference between Brute Force and Credential Stuffing?

Many people get confused between brute force attacks and credentials stuffing. To help clear this up, here is a simple description of the two. These are both in regards to the login form only.

Brute Force
Brute force attacks on the login form consist of the attacker having a defined list (called a dictionary) of potential passwords. The attacker will then try each of these defined passwords with each username the attacker is trying to brute force. Put simply, this is a 1 (username) too many (password) attack.

A common mitigation to brute force attacks is the implementation of account lockout. In this case, after 3, or 5, or 10 failed attempts for a single username, the user account is locked to block any more attempts. This drastically reduces the number of passwords that may be tried in a short period of time.

Credential Stuffing
Credential Stuffing is another attack on the login form but it differs from a brute force attack in that the list used contains both a username and a password. This list is often obtained through a data breach at another organization. The purpose is to find accounts that are re-used across multiple sites. In this case, the attack is a 1 (username) to 1 (password) attack. For each username, only one password will be attempted.

Unlike with Brute Force, account lockout doesn’t have much affect on credential stuffing. Multi-factor authentication is a good mitigation as it will limit the use of valid credentials.

by Leave a Comment

Thinking about starting a bug bounty? Do this first.

Application security has become an important topic within our organizations. We have come to understand that the data that we deem sensitive and critical to our business is made available through these applications. With breaches happening all the time, it is critical to take reasonable steps to help protect that data by ensuring that our applications are implementing strong controls.

Over the years, testing has been the main avenue for “implementing” security into applications. We have seen a shift to the left more recently, leading to doing more throughout the entire development cycle, but we still have a ways to go. I am still a firm believer in embedding security into each of the phases as our main means of securing applications. Testing, however, is still a major component of any security program.

Typically, organizations rely on penetration testing to find the flaws in their applications. This is the de facto standard for understanding your risk. Unfortunately, penetration testing for applications has been watered down from what we think about with network testing. Many of the assessments we call penetration tests these days are just automated scans transposed into a custom report. These types of testing overlook one of the components a penetration test provides, which is the manual testing. Of course, there is much more to a penetration test, but that is not the focus of this post.

Internally, organizations may implement automated tools to help identify security flaws within their applications. These tools are good at finding certain types of flaws, and usually quite quickly. Like many current penetration tests, they lack the manual assessment side.

Not only does manual testing have the ability to find different types of flaws, such as authentication, authorization, CSRF, business logic, etc., it also has the ability to identify flaws that an automation tool overlooks. For example, a tool may not find every instance of cross-site scripting, depending on how that tool analyzes the system. Granted, manual testing is not guaranteed to find every instance either. With each type of testing, there is always a number of issues that will not be identified. The goal is to start reducing these numbers down over time.

Handling the results of all these res ports from the different assessments is critical to how well you start creating more resilient applications. In many organizations, vulnerabilities identified are handled as individual items and patched. In my opinion, the return on investment is when you can analyze these results to review your development process and see what improvements can be made to reduce the chance these types of flaws will be included in the future. Having an expert available to help review the issues and provide insight into how to use that information to improve your process is valuable.

Having a solid application development process in place is important before thinking about implementing a bug bounty program within your organization. If you are not already doing things consistently, there is a better chance the bounty program will fail.

Bug bounty programs have been becoming more prevalent over the last few years. This is especially true for newer technical startups. We have seen much slower adoption with most of the major corporations. There are many reasons for this, which are outside the scope of this post. There have been questions on whether bug bounties can replace penetration testing. The answer is no, because the goal of each of these is different. There are plenty of articles discussing the subject. A bug bounty program has also been seen by many as the evidence to show they are doing application security. Unfortunately, we can’t test ourselves secure. As I stated previously, testing is just a part of our solution for application security.

A key difference between our traditional testing and a bug bounty program is that bug bounties pay by the bug. Our traditional testing is provided at flat fees. For example, that automated tool is a set price for a month or year subscription. A penetration test is a set price per test. A bug bounty is priced per bug, which makes the cost very unpredictable. In addition, if you are not already doing many of the things previously discussed, there could be a lot of bugs to be found, leading to potentially high payouts.

As I have stated before, penetration testing has a different purpose and it can be very expensive. At Jardine Software we offer more budget friendly manual application security testing at a fixed cost. The goal is not necessarily to find every instance of every vulnerability or to exploit vulnerabilities in the way a penetration test would. The focus is on augmenting the automated testing you may already have in place and to provide that missing manual piece. The testing is performed manually by using the application in combination with Burp Suite, to look for weaknesses and provide those in a way that helps prioritize and then remediate them according to your organization’s needs.

The manual application security testing is typically performed over a week to two weeks and includes a broader scope than a typical bug bounty program. The reason for this is that we want to help identify risks that we see based on our years of experience to make you aware. This assessment can then help identify where you may have issues within your application before opening it up for a crowd sourced bounty program where each bug is priced individually.

If you are thinking about implementing a bug bounty program, reach out and lets chat first. Even if you are not considering a bug bounty program, do you have any manual application security testing implemented? We have the expertise to help provide the necessary testing or provide training for your internal teams to start applying manual testing techniques as part of your life cycle.

by Leave a Comment

Choosing Application Security Tools

There are lots of security tools available, so how do you know which one to pick?

If your security team is not including the application teams in the decision, you run a big risk of failure. The security team does get the ability to form relationships with vendors. We see them at conferences. We know people that work there. Because our focus is on security, we know the tools that exist in our space and we have an idea of which ones may be better than others. Of course, this is often due to what we hear from others, rather than our own experience with those tools.

Picking a tool in a vacuum is less than ideal. Sure, the tool may have five stars and has great detection rates. However, if the tool doesn’t fit into the development process and causes more overhead and friction, it will end up failing. A tool with 100% accuracy is still useless if it is not actually being used.

I have seen over and over where a security group acquires a tool, especially static analysis, and a few months later they realize it is just sitting on the shelf. Like all of us, we are excited when we get a new toy. We use it, learn it. Then, the newness wears off. Without the proper processes in place, this can happen with security tools as well. We don’t want this to happen to you.

The first step in determining which tools make sense is to understand the development process now and where it is going. Lets talk about static analysis for a moment. If your development process doesn’t make use of continuous integration and doesn’t plan to then that is not a high priority feature of the tool you receive. Have you considered what IDE the developers use?

I once had a situation where static analysis was about to be rolled out. The security team worked to pick a vendor and get the ball rolling. It was later in the process that the development team was brought on board with the conversation. They asked questions that were less of a priority to the security team, but more of a priority to them. For example, The tool provided a plugin for their IDE. However, when digging deeper, the plugin ran a few versions behind. So what had appeared to be a good setup, now looked a little less efficient since the plugin may not work. This isn’t a deal breaker, but depending on how you were planning on this solution working, it adds friction to the process. The more friction, the more pain.

The next step is understanding who will ultimately be using this tool? For those that listen to the podcast on a regular basis and follow my blogs, you know I am a huge fan of the application teams having direct access to these tools. In my opinion, static analysis is a developers tool. It is there to evaluate the source code and identify policy violations that only the developer can resolve. Giving them access and control over that function and embedding it into their process reduces that friction. Don’t confuse this with the idea that security is not getting the results. Security still needs to have insight into what is going on with security flaws within the application. But to be efficient, the results of these tools need to fit into the flow of how development works. Not be one-off reports under different processes.

This is no different, in my opinion, than dynamic analysis or interactive analysis. These are tools that should be used by the QA group. The group that is responsible for testing and most likely already has automated testing capabilities. They are trained in identifying bugs, reporting, and tracking them. Building these types of tools into their process just makes sense. How many listeners have their own stories of the security team exporting a thousand page report out of that dynamic scanner and sending it to the application team as a pdf? I have been there. Even I won’t read through that report.

The moral of the story here is that if we don’t understand how development works, what type of tools they already use, and what they can handle, we will probably pick a solution that will be ineffective, or at the very least, cause us a lot more work. The goal is not to just shove tools onto the development teams and say do this. As application security representatives, our goal is to help build better applications. That doesn’t mean that our job is to run all the tools and hound the application teams to fix items. By understanding the environments and processes we can pick tools that will fit much better, allowing us to focus our time on building out other solutions or processes for the organization. We are still relied upon to provide the expert advice and guidance to the issues that are identified.

If you are considering implementing these types of tools, take a moment to sit down with all involved parties to get everyone on board. A well laid out plan will go much further than a shotgun approach.