Description
The software does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes output that is written to logs.
Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending on the nature of the application, the task of reviewing log files may be performed manually on an as-needed basis or automated with a tool that automatically culls logs for important events or trending information.
Modes of Introduction:
– Implementation
Likelihood of Exploit: Medium
Related Weaknesses
Consequences
Integrity, Confidentiality, Availability, Non-Repudiation: Modify Application Data, Hide Activities, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Interpretation of the log files may be hindered or misdirected if an attacker can supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. In the most benign case, an attacker may be able to insert false entries into the log file by providing the application with input that includes appropriate characters. Forged or otherwise corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker’s tracks, possibly by skewing statistics, or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker can render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. An attacker may inject code or other commands into the log file and take advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility.
Potential Mitigations
Phase: Implementation
Description:
Phase: Implementation
Description:
Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
Phase: Implementation
Description:
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application’s current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
CVE References
- CVE-2006-4624
- Chain: inject fake log entries with fake timestamps using CRLF injection
More Stories
The Most Dangerous Vulnerabilities in Apache Tomcat and How to Protect Against Them
Apache Tomcat is an open-source web server and servlet container that is widely used in enterprise environments to run Java...
ZDI-CAN-18333: A Critical Zero-Day Vulnerability in Microsoft Windows
Zero-day vulnerabilities are a serious threat to cybersecurity, as they can be exploited by malicious actors to gain unauthorized access...
CWE-669 – Incorrect Resource Transfer Between Spheres
Description The product does not properly transfer a resource/behavior to another sphere, or improperly imports a resource/behavior from another sphere,...
CWE-67 – Improper Handling of Windows Device Names
Description The software constructs pathnames from user input, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles a pathname containing a...
CWE-670 – Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation
Description The code contains a control flow path that does not reflect the algorithm that the path is intended to...
CWE-671 – Lack of Administrator Control over Security
Description The product uses security features in a way that prevents the product's administrator from tailoring security settings to reflect...