beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daryl Olander <dolan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Page Flow Security Risk
Date Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:28:07 GMT
It seems to be a risk if someone expects only page A to be accessable from
an action and all of the sudden page Bis being navigated to.  Futher, I just
tweaked one thing in those structures.  You're really the only one that
would understand what other things could be done :-)

It just seems like anytime a user can override navigation out of an action
that there could be some security issues.  I agree that they can't access
things they don't have access to because we always forward to the JSP.  But,
we pass page inputs, etc along those links.  These may actually have
consequences that differ from just directly hitting the .JSPs.

At this point, it might depend on what the App / PageFlow / JSP all do and
how the data flows in the application.  I just worry some where out there
there could be a problem.  It's not a huge risk, but it is a risk.

On 2/17/06, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> First, I agree that this needs to be fixed.
> Second, just so I understand... this is a hole because the user might
> have set up the webapp to prevent direct browser URL access to
> whatever's being forwarded to?
>
> Daryl Olander wrote:
> > OK...We've got a hole...
> >
> > I have the following form that change the forward path to /bar.jsp
> >
> >   <netui:form action="submit">
> >     <netui:hidden dataSource="pageFlow.currentPageInfo.forward.path"
> > dataInput="/bar.jsp"/>
> >     <netui:button value="submit" />
> >   </netui:form>
> >
> > I also have the following action in my page flow.
> >
> >     @Jpf.Action(
> >         forwards={
> >            @Jpf.Forward(name="index", navigateTo =
> > Jpf.NavigateTo.currentPage)
> >         }
> >     )
> >     protected Forward submit(Form form)
> >     {
> >         return new Forward("index");
> >     }
> >
> > If the current page is index.jsp, this should navigate back to that,
> when
> > the form is submitted it will navigate to bar.jsp.  In my mind this is
> > actually a security hole.  I can dynamically change the navigation
> > externally in this situation.  I haven't played around with the other
> > exposed properties (currentPageInfo, previousPageInfo,
> previousActionInfo)
> > all expose the same JavaBean that is not immutable.
> >
> > I'm going to open a Jiri bug on this.  I think this is critical and
> needs to
> > be fixed now.  My suggestion is that we rename these methods on the
> > PageFlowController so they aren't picked up as JavaBean properties.
> >
> > I suggest we do this to:
> >
> > currentPageInfo
> > previousPageInfo
> > previousActionInfo
> > modeulConfig
> > actions
> >
> > We need to spin a new release on this.
> >
> >
> > On 2/17/06, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, the Struts ModuleConfig and related objects are all immutable and
> >> always have been.  Are you seeing any other objects we expose that
> >> aren't in our control?  I agree that it's brittle -- feel free to add
> >> your option #2 if you're worried about continued support for the
> >> deprecated base class.
> >>
> >> Daryl Olander wrote:
> >>
> >>> I agree we need to move to a POJO model....
> >>>
> >>> I think the issue is that we expose objects like the struts config
> that
> >>>
> >> are
> >>
> >>> developed independently of Beehive which may have setters which could
> >>>
> >> open
> >>
> >>> up security holes.  It's also the case that we expose object that
> expose
> >>> object and underlying modification to the runtime could open up a
> >>>
> >> security
> >>
> >>> hole and no one would know.  The just simply added a new feature and
> >>>
> >> exposed
> >>
> >>> a setter.  This is certainly a brittle design even if we verified all
> of
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>> current paths.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think opion #3 is viable because we still need to support for
> at
> >>> least some time the current model even if it's deprecated.
> >>>
> >>> On 2/17/06, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> It's not happenstance.  When we still extended Struts Action, I had
> >>>> workarounds in there to prevent access to dangerous base class
> objects
> >>>> (like getServlet()).  In general I allowed public getters for
> >>>> unmodifiable objects.  If we're exposing something dangerous, then
> it's
> >>>> my fault -- it isn't just bad luck.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Access to the shared flow Map is luckily illegal when the
> expressions
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> are being updated.
> >>>> I think I *did* expose a potential security hole by not returning
> >>>> Collections.unmodifiableMap() from
> >>>> FlowControllerFactory.getSharedFlowsForPath() -- this needs to be
> >>>> fixed.  Why is access to the Map illegal currently?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would vote for this option:
> >>>>
> >>>>     3) Verify that what's currently exposed is safe, and move to the
> >>>> POJO-pageflow model (deprecate use of the base class).
> >>>>
> >>>> Rich
> >>>>
> >>>> Daryl Olander wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I've been looking at a possible security risk in page flows.  At
the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> moment,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I don't think we have an actual security hole, but I think we have
a
> >>>>> situation where we could create one very easy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The issue is that there are a number of public properties on the
> >>>>> PageFlowController class.  There are public getters that give access
> >>>>>
> >> to
> >>
> >>>> low
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> level structures.  For example, you can get the ModuleConfig from
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Struts,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> the ActionForm, ActionServlet, the map of shared flows, etc.  This
> >>>>>
> >> issue
> >>
> >>>>> arises because you can submit a form that contains a hidden field
> that
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> would
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> update these data items.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   <netui:form action="submit">
> >>>>>     <netui:hidden dataSource="pageFlow.moduleConfig.prefix"
> >>>>> dataInput="value"/>
> >>>>>     <netui:button value="submit" />
> >>>>>   </netui:form>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the above code, this could modify the Struts ModuleConfig
> structure
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> and
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> set the prefix value to "value".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In fact, in looking around at this for a little while, I couldn't
> find
> >>>>> anything you can do that is destructive.  The Struts config
> >>>>>
> >> information
> >>
> >>>> is
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> frozen, so the code above results in an
> IllegalStateException.  Access
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> to
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> the shared flow Map is luckily illegal when the expressions are
> being
> >>>>> updated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think that it's purely happenstance that we are not exposing a
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> security
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> hole here. In fact, with a bit more playing round, we might find
> that
> >>>>>
> >> we
> >>
> >>>>> really are exposing a hole.  We need to prevent page flow updates
> for
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> these
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> base class properties.  There seems to be a number of ways we could
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> solve
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> this,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) We could prevent all update to PageFlow.  This is a pretty
> radical
> >>>>> solution because it's a backward incompatible change.
> >>>>> 2) We could create a list of properties that can't be updated. 
The
> >>>>>
> >> list
> >>
> >>>>> could be created automatically through reflection.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Right now, I would lean toward 2, but I think we should have more
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> discussion
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> of this issue.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message