Description

The software receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.

Modes of Introduction:

– Architecture and Design

Likelihood of Exploit:

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-913
CWE-502

 

Consequences

Integrity: Modify Application Data

An attacker could modify sensitive data or program variables.

Integrity: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands

Other, Integrity: Varies by Context, Alter Execution Logic

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Implementation

Effectiveness:

Description: 

Phase: Architecture and Design, Implementation

Effectiveness:

Description: 

If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.

Phase: Implementation

Effectiveness:

Description: 

For any externally-influenced input, check the input against an allowlist of internal object attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified.

Phase: Implementation, Architecture and Design

Effectiveness:

Description: 

Refactor the code so that object attributes or fields do not need to be dynamically identified, and only expose getter/setter functionality for the intended attributes.

CVE References

 

• CVE-2012-2054
  • Mass assignment allows modification of arbitrary attributes using modified URL.

• CVE-2012-2055
  • Source version control product allows modification of trusted key using mass assignment.

• CVE-2008-7310
  • Attackers can bypass payment step in e-commerce software.

• CVE-2013-1465
  • Use of PHP unserialize function on untrusted input allows attacker to modify application configuration.

• CVE-2012-3527
  • Use of PHP unserialize function on untrusted input in content management system might allow code execution.

• CVE-2012-0911
  • Use of PHP unserialize function on untrusted input in content management system allows code execution using a crafted cookie value.

• CVE-2012-0911
  • Content management system written in PHP allows unserialize of arbitrary objects, possibly allowing code execution.

• CVE-2011-4962
  • Content management system written in PHP allows code execution through page comments.

• CVE-2009-4137
  • Use of PHP unserialize function on cookie value allows remote code execution or upload of arbitrary files.

• CVE-2007-5741
  • Content management system written in Python interprets untrusted data as pickles, allowing code execution.

• CVE-2011-2520
  • Python script allows local users to execute code via pickled data.

• CVE-2005-2875
  • Python script allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code using pickled objects.

• CVE-2013-0277
  • Ruby on Rails allows deserialization of untrusted YAML to execute arbitrary code.

• CVE-2011-2894
  • Spring framework allows deserialization of objects from untrusted sources to execute arbitrary code.

• CVE-2012-1833
  • Grails allows binding of arbitrary parameters to modify arbitrary object properties.

• CVE-2010-3258
  • Incorrect deserialization in web browser allows escaping the sandbox.

• CVE-2008-1013
  • Media library allows deserialization of objects by untrusted Java applets, leading to arbitrary code execution.