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.




Network Security Web-App-Sec
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: (clarification) GET and POST Methods Accepted

Subject: RE: (clarification) GET and POST Methods Accepted
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:43:21 +0200

From: Evans, Arian [mailto:Arian.Evans@fishnetsecurity.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 8:24 PM
  > 
  > 
  > While we are all for more discussion about the security implications
  > of using GET versus POST, the questions I'm seeking to answer are
  > (don't want to speak for Ed here, but I think we're on the 
  > same page):
  > 
  > 1) Are other people seeing that the applications they test
  > accept GETs where they are intended/expecting to accept POSTs?

Straight answer: over 90% where the FORM has a POST-action but GET is
accepted as well (out of more than 100 examined websites)

  > 2) Are you seeing this more or less on specific platforms?

It looks like on .net/asp-Site it is less often found

  > 3) Anyone know why none of the automated tools test this?

Probably because it is not yet recognized or rated as a problem. At the
current state of discussion it should be marked as a potential problem. My
personal opinion (and that is how we handle it in our reports): it should be
reported as a problem and should be explained, why not allowing it gives an
additional measure against potential vulnerabilities.

  > 
  > 4) Does anyone on the list find this issue worth 
  > discussing/addressing
  > in more detail?

Reaching some point of common understanding which results in a
state-of-the-art recommendation would be fine.


Session Riding (aka CSRF) gives one more argument against allowing GET where
a POST is defined: An image tag like this

<IMG SRC="https://b2b.company.tld/webapp/delete?item=123";>

that triggers an action on the attacked users account is often easily put
into a posting to a forum, wiki, blog, etc. and executed by any user that
views the page. If the site would only allow POST for the delete-function,
you had to find a carrier that accepts JavaScript-Tags, to launch the
attack. 

Of course, the root of the problem is the Session Riding weakness itself.
But recommending against GET is a meaningful measures of the 'additional
measure' or 'second line' type.

Beste Grüße
Thomas Schreiber
____________________________________________________________
SecureNet GmbH - http://www.securenet.de
+49 89/32133-610
mailto:ts@securenet.de



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>