4.0

More documents

Recommendations

Info

40 Web Application Penetration Testing Gray Box Testing Testing for application entry points via a Gray Box methodology would consist of everything already identified above with one addition. In cases where there are external sources from which the application receives data and processes it (such as SNMP traps, syslog messages, SMTP, or SOAP messages from other servers) a meeting with the application developers could identify any functions that would accept or expect user input and how they are formatted. For example, the developer could help in understanding how to formulate a correct SOAP request that the application would accept and where the web service resides (if the web service or any other function hasn’t already been identified during the black box testing). Tools Intercepting Proxy: • OWASP: Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP) • OWASP: WebScarab • Burp Suite • CAT Browser Plug-in: • TamperIE for Internet Explorer • Tamper Data for Firefox References Whitepapers • RFC 2616 – Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP 1.1 - http: /tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616 flow, transformation and use of data throughout an application. • Race - tests multiple concurrent instances of the application manipulating the same data. The trade off as to what method is used and to what degree each method is used should be negotiated with the application owner. Simpler approaches could also be adopted, including asking the application owner what functions or code sections they are particularly concerned about and how those code segments can be reached. Black Box Testing To demonstrate code coverage to the application owner, the tester can start with a spreadsheet and document all the links discovered by spidering the application (either manually or automatically). Then the tester can look more closely at decision points in the application and investigate how many significant code paths are discovered. These should then be documented in the spreadsheet with URLs, prose and screenshot descriptions of the paths discovered. Gray/White Box testing Ensuring sufficient code coverage for the application owner is far easier with the gray and white box approach to testing. Information solicited by and provided to the tester will ensure the minimum requirements for code coverage are met. Example Automatic Spidering The automatic spider is a tool used to automatically discover new resources (URLs) on a particular website. It begins with a list of URLs to visit, called the seeds, which depends on how the Spider is started. While there are a lot of Spidering tools, the following example uses the Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP): Map execution paths through application (OTG-INFO-007) Summary Before commencing security testing, understanding the structure of the application is paramount. Without a thorough understanding of the layout of the application, it is unlkely that it will be tested thoroughly. Test Objectives Map the target application and understand the principal workflows. How to Test In black box testing it is extremely difficult to test the entire code base. Not just because the tester has no view of the code paths through the application, but even if they did, to test all code paths would be very time consuming. One way to reconcile this is to document what code paths were discovered and tested. There are several ways to approach the testing and measurement of code coverage: • Path - test each of the paths through an application that includes combinatorial and boundary value analysis testing for each decision path. While this approach offers thoroughness, the number of testable paths grows exponentially with each decision branch. • Data flow (or taint analysis) - tests the assignment of variables via external interaction (normally users). Focuses on mapping the ZAP offers the following automatic spidering features, which can be selected based on the tester’s needs: • Spider Site - The seed list contains all the existing URIs already found for the selected site. • Spider Subtree - The seed list contains all the existing URIs already found and present in the subtree of the selected node. • Spider URL - The seed list contains only the URI corresponding to the selected node (in the Site Tree). • Spider all in Scope - The seed list contains all the URIs the user has selected as being ‘In Scope’. Tools • Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP)
41 Web Application Penetration Testing • List of spreadsheet software • Diagramming software References Whitepapers [1] http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_coverage Fingerprint Web Application Framework (OTG-INFO-008) Summary Web framework[*] fingerprinting is an important subtask of the information gathering process. Knowing the type of framework can automatically give a great advantage if such a framework has already been tested by the penetration tester. It is not only the known vulnerabilities in unpatched versions but specific misconfigurations in the framework and known file structure that makes the fingerprinting process so important. Several different vendors and versions of web frameworks are widely used. Information about it significantly helps in the testing process, and can also help in changing the course of the test. Such information can be derived by careful analysis of certain common locations. Most of the web frameworks have several markers in those locations which help an attacker to spot them. This is basically what all automatic tools do, they look for a marker from a predefined location and then compare it to the database of known signatures. For better accuracy several markers are usually used. [*] Please note that this article makes no differentiation between Web Application Frameworks (WAF) and Content Management Systems (CMS). This has been done to make it convenient to fingerprint both of them in one chapter. Furthermore, both categories are referenced as web frameworks. Test Objectives To define type of used web framework so as to have a better understanding of the security testing methodology. How to Test Black Box testing There are several most common locations to look in in order to define the current framework: • HTTP headers • Cookies • HTML source code • Specific files and folders HTTP headers The most basic form of identifying a web framework is to look at the X-Powered-By field in the HTTP response header. Many tools can be used to fingerprint a target. The simplest one is netcat utility. HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: nginx/1.0.14 Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 08:19:15 GMT Content-Type: text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1 Connection: close Vary: Accept-Encoding X-Powered-By: Mono From the X-Powered-By field, we understand that the web application framework is likely to be Mono. However, although this approach is simple and quick, this methodology doesn’t work in 100% of cases. It is possible to easily disable X-Powered-By header by a proper configuration. There are also several techniques that allow a web site to obfuscate HTTP headers (see an example in #Remediation chapter). So in the same example the tester could either miss the X-Powered-By header or obtain an answer like the following: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: nginx/1.0.14 Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 08:19:15 GMT Content-Type: text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1 Connection: close Vary: Accept-Encoding X-Powered-By: Blood, sweat and tears Sometimes there are more HTTP-headers that point at a certain web framework. In the following example, according to the information from HTTP-request, one can see that X-Powered-By header contains PHP version. However, the X-Generator header points out the used framework is actually Swiftlet, which helps a penetration tester to expand his attack vectors. When performing fingerprinting, always carefully inspect every HTTP-header for such leaks. HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: nginx/1.4.1 Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 09:22:52 GMT Content-Type: text/html Connection: keep-alive Vary: Accept-Encoding X-Powered-By: PHP/5.4.16-1~dotdeb.1 Expires: Thu, 19 Nov 1981 08:52:00 GMT Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, postcheck=0, pre-check=0 Pragma: no-cache X-Generator: Swiftlet Consider the following HTTP Request-Response: $ nc 127.0.0.1 80 HEAD / HTTP/1.0
Page 1 and 2: 1 Testing Guide 4.0 Project Leaders
Page 3 and 4: Testing Guide Foreword - Table of c
Page 5 and 6: 3 Testing Guide Foreword - Table of
Page 7 and 8: 5 Testing Guide Foreword - By Eoin
Page 9 and 10: 7 Testing Guide Frontispiece 1 Test
Page 11 and 12: 9 Testing Guide Introduction 2 The
Page 13 and 14: 11 Testing Guide Introduction vide
Page 15 and 16: 13 Testing Guide Introduction Testi
Page 17 and 18: 15 Testing Guide Introduction laid
Page 19 and 20: 17 Testing Guide Introduction valid
Page 21 and 22: 19 Testing Guide Introduction USER
Page 23 and 24: 21 Testing Guide Introduction ment
Page 25 and 26: 23 Testing Guide Introduction offen
Page 27 and 28: 25 The OWASP Testing Framework sect
Page 29 and 30: 27 Web Application Penetration Test
Page 41: 39 Web Application Penetration Test
Page 93 and 94:
91 Web Application Penetration Test
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
101 Web Application Penetration Tes
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
209 same code can be applied to ses
Page 213 and 214:
211 Reporting Test ID Lowest versio
Page 215 and 216:
213 Reporting Test ID Business Logi
Page 217 and 218:
215 Appendix kajfghlhfkcocafkcjlajl
Page 219 and 220:
217 Appendix Testing - http:/www.ni
Page 221 and 222:
219 Cross Site Scripting (XSS) For
Page 223 and 224:
221 LDAP Injection For details on L
show all

4.0

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?