Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | GET and POST Methods Accepted |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:04:06 -0500 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I have begun stating this as an issue during assessments and wonder what you folks think of it. Web sites are allowing a switch in method for requests and still processing the input. I have been able to analyze a site login form which is specified to use POST method and craft a URL (GET of course) that the web server will still accept and process. If the site will accept the GET method for form data and is vulnerable to XSS, the attack surface greatly increases over a site that is vulnerable to XSS but only accepts the POST method. POST is still attackable, but it becomes more complicated than simply emailing a link. There used to be a substantial difference in how variables received via GET vs POST were stored. That difference had to be accounted for in the server code and would not lend itself to arbitrary method switching. This may disclose some of my ignorance, but it seems something has changed and application systems are treating input values the same regardless of the method. I have seen this recently on J2EE sites and CGI (PERL, PYTHON, Binary). Do any of you test for this issue - what are your results? Any other discussion is valued. Ed Welsh -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.2 (Build 2424) iQEVAwUBQ01sNlcLJH9lmXCIAQgowAgAz4eUyEgXKIk7aveM09znkQVy4rUm640w 7M9XwRC2XnHo49MIc2CLsBa6d2yFbBsfhjw0L+hNRhWVnWRZsBv1Z+k61slZK0QU qeQS4f3+6iVgqesLsRtFG6d7DI50tDuVFpIkrwosLL4OkVLFHrA56x3BkrByverx pYa6SMihDMrVRl5dvIGecijObexHLM03gEembyTB2XJC5h+5Z3UNaGqt6kf4X0Dz Y3pfBdQ5OH8XdVReW+AZJAimd40g/+qiiYhMbeKJzC0p3/7Yw1VOG9//OPKFi/wY q79op1KikDcZ7l29YdI323gfI2G5WS3rJsdP00wM9X2IFEsdYR7n3A== =zb7v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Notes from CISSP class with Dr. Eric Cole, dreamwvr |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: GET and POST Methods Accepted, Joe Teff |
| Previous by Thread: | Administrivia: CISSP thread, Andrew van der Stock |
| Next by Thread: | Re: GET and POST Methods Accepted, Joe Teff |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |