CWE-99: Improper Control of Resource Identifiers (‘Resource Injection’)
| Abstraction | Structure | Status |
|---|---|---|
| None | Simple | Draft |
Description
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the input before it is used as an identifier for a resource that may be outside the intended sphere of control.
Extended Description
A resource injection issue occurs when the following two conditions are met:
- An attacker can specify the identifier used to access a system resource. For example, an attacker might be able to specify part of the name of a file to be opened or a port number to be used.
- By specifying the resource, the attacker gains a capability that would not otherwise be permitted. For example, the program may give the attacker the ability to overwrite the specified file, run with a configuration controlled by the attacker, or transmit sensitive information to a third-party server.
This may enable an attacker to access or modify otherwise protected system resources.
Alternate Terms
- Insecure Direct Object Reference: OWASP uses this term, although it is effectively the same as resource injection.
Related Weaknesses
| Nature | ID | View ID | Name |
|---|---|---|---|
| ChildOf | CWE-74 | 1000 | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component (‘Injection’) |
| PeerOf | CWE-706 | 1000 | Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference |
| CanAlsoBe | CWE-73 | 1000 | External Control of File Name or Path |
Modes of Introduction
| Phase | Note |
|---|---|
| Architecture and Design | - |
| Implementation | REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic. |
Applicable Platforms
Languages
Class: Not Language-Specific
Technologies
Likelihood Of Exploit
High
Common Consequences
| Scope | Impact | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Confidentiality, Integrity | Read Application Data, Modify Application Data, Read Files or Directories, Modify Files or Directories | An attacker could gain access to or modify sensitive data or system resources. This could allow access to protected files or directories including configuration files and files containing sensitive information. |
Detection Methods
Automated Static Analysis
Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect “sources” (origins of input) with “sinks” (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)
Effectiveness: High
Potential Mitigations
Implementation
Strategy: Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, it can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.