4.0

More documents

Recommendations

Info

62 Web Application Penetration Testing - http: /msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc197955(v=vs.95). aspx • MSDN: “Network Security Access Restrictions in Silverlight” - http: /msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc645032(v=vs.95). aspx • Stefan Esser: “Poking new holes with Flash Crossdomain Policy Files” http: /www.hardened-php.net/library/poking_new_ holes_with_flash_crossdomain_policy_files.html • Jeremiah Grossman: “Crossdomain.xml Invites Cross-site Mayhem” http: /jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/2008/05/ crossdomainxml-invites-cross-site.html • Google Doctype: “Introduction to Flash security “ - http: /code. google.com/p/doctype-mirror/wiki/ArticleFlashSecurity Test Role Definitions (OTG-IDENT-001) Summary It is common in modern enterprises to define system roles to manage users and authorization to system resources. In most system implementations it is expected that at least two roles exist, administrators and regular users. The first representing a role that permits access to privileged and sensitive functionality and information, the second representing a role that permits access to regular business functionality and information. Well developed roles should align with business processes which are supported by the application. It is important to remember that cold, hard authorization isn’t the only way to manage access to system objects. In more trusted environments where confidentiality is not critical, softer controls such as application workflow and audit logging can support data integrity requirements while not restricting user access to functionality or creating complex role structures that are difficult to manage. Its important to consider the Goldilocks principle when role engineering, in that defining too few, broad roles (thereby exposing access to functionality users don’t require) is as bad as too many, tightly tailored roles (thereby restricting access to functionality users do require). Test objectives Validate the system roles defined within the application sufficiently define and separate each system and business role to manage appropriate access to system functionality and information. How to test Either with or without the help of the system developers or administrators, develop an role versus permission matrix. The matrix should enumerate all the roles that can be provisioned and explore the permissions that are allowed to be applied to the objects including any constraints. If a matrix is provided with the application it should be validated by the tester, if it doesn’t exist, the tester should generate it and determine whether the matrix satisfies the desired access policy for the application. Example Role Permission Object Constraints RoStaff Customer Read Read Customer records Customer records Only records associated with customers assigned by Manager Only own record A real world example of role definitions can be found in the Word- Press roles documentation [1]. WordPress has six default roles ranging from Super Admin to a Subscriber. Tools While the most thorough and accurate approach to completing this test is to conduct it manually, spidering tools [2] are also useful. Log on with each role in turn and spider the application (don’t forget to exclude the logout link from the spidering). References • Role Engineering for Enterprise Security Management, E Coyne & J Davis, 2007 • Role engineering and RBAC standards Remediation Remediation of the issues can take the following forms: • Role Engineering • Mapping of business roles to system roles • Separation of Duties Test User Registration Process (OTG-IDENT-002) Summary Some websites offer a user registration process that automates (or semi-automates) the provisioning of system access to users. The identity requirements for access vary from positive identification to none at all, depending on the security requirements of the system. Many public applications completely automate the registration and provisioning process because the size of the user base makes it impossible to manage manually. However, many corporate applications will provision users manually, so this test case may not apply. Test objectives [1] Verify that the identity requirements for user registration are aligned with business and security requirements. [2] Validate the registration process. How to test Verify that the identity requirements for user registration are aligned with business and security requirements: [1] Can anyone register for access? [2] Are registrations vetted by a human prior to provisioning, or are they automatically granted if the criteria are met? [3] Can the same person or identity register multiple times? [4] Can users register for different roles or permissions? [5] What proof of identity is required for a registration to be successful? [6] Are registered identities verified? Administrator Manager Read Read Customer records Customer records Only records related to business unit Validate the registration process: [1] Can identity information be easily forged or faked? [2] Can the exchange of identity information be manipulated during registration?
63 Web Application Penetration Testing Example In the WordPress example below, the only identification requirement is an email address that is accessible to the registrant. • Is there any verification, vetting and authorization of de-provisioning requests? • Can an administrator provision other administrators or just users? • Can an administrator or other user provision accounts with privileges greater than their own? • Can an administrator or user de-provision themselves? • How are the files or resources owned by the de-provisioned user managed? Are they deleted? Is access transferred? Example In WordPress, only a user’s name and email address are required to provision the user, as shown below: In contrast, in the Google example below the identification requirements include name, date of birth, country, mobile phone number, email address and CAPTCHA response. While only two of these can be verified (email address and mobile number), the identification requirements are stricter than WordPress. De-provisioning of users requires the administrator to select the users to be de-provisioned, select Delete from the dropdown menu (circled) and then applying this action. The administrator is then presented with a dialog box asking what to do with the user’s posts (delete or transfer them). Tools A HTTP proxy can be a useful tool to test this control. References User Registration Design Remediation Implement identification and verification requirements that correspond to the security requirements of the information the credentials protect. Test Account Provisioning Process (OTG-IDENT-003) Summary The provisioning of accounts presents an opportunity for an attacker to create a valid account without application of the proper identification and authorization process. Test objectives Verify which accounts may provision other accounts and of what type. How to test Determine which roles are able to provision users and what sort of accounts they can provision. • Is there any verification, vetting and authorization of provisioning requests? Tools While the most thorough and accurate approach to completing this test is to conduct it manually, HTTP proxy tools could be also useful. Testing for Account Enumeration and Guessable User Account (OTG-IDENT-004) Summary The scope of this test is to verify if it is possible to collect a set of valid usernames by interacting with the authentication mechanism of the application. This test will be useful for brute force testing, in which the tester verifies if, given a valid username, it is possible to find the corresponding password. Often, web applications reveal when a username exists on system, either as a consequence of mis-configuration or as a design
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 63: 61 Web Application Penetration Test
Page 103 and 104: 101 Web Application Penetration Tes
Page 115 and 116:
113 Web Application Penetration Tes
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?