Book a Security Review

Weakness · High

CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

What it is

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

Likelihood of exploit: Medium6 exploited in the wildMITRE CWE 4.19.1

Severity (our rating)
High
Likelihood of exploit
Medium
Introduced during
Architecture and Design
Exploited in the wild
6 known exploited CVEs

What an attacker can do

  • Gain Privileges or Assume Identity (Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Non-Repudiation, Access Control)
  • Bypass Protection Mechanism (Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Non-Repudiation, Access Control)
  • Read Application Data (Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Non-Repudiation, Access Control)
  • Modify Application Data (Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Non-Repudiation, Access Control)
  • DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart (Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Non-Repudiation, Access Control)

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design

  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF.
  • Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
  • Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
  • Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled.
  • Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.

Implementation

  • Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
  • Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.

How to find it

  • Manual Analysis. This weakness can be detected using tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. Specifically, manual analysis can be useful for finding this weakness, and for minimizing false positives assuming an understanding of business logic. However, it might not achieve desired code coverage within limited time constraints. For black-box analysis, if credentials are not known for privileged accounts, then the most security-critical portions of the application may not receive sufficient attention. Consider using OWASP CSRFTester to identify potential issues and aid in manual analysis.
  • Automated Static Analysis. CSRF is currently difficult to detect reliably using automated techniques. This is because each application has its own implicit security policy that dictates which requests can be influenced by an outsider and automatically performed on behalf of a user, versus which requests require strong confidence that the user intends to make the request. For example, a keyword search of the public portion of a web site is typically expected to be encoded within a link that can be launched automatically when the user clicks on the link.
  • Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode. According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
  • Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode. According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies
  • Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation. According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Web Application Scanner
  • Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation. According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer
  • Manual Static Analysis - Source Code. According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)
  • Automated Static Analysis - Source Code. According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Source code Weakness Analyzer Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer
  • Architecture or Design Review. According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.) Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction

CWE-352 on MITRE's CWE site

Exploited in the wild: 6 CVEs

Vulnerabilities caused by CWE-352 that attackers have used, from CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, newest first.

All known exploited vulnerabilities

H2 Security

Found it in your code?

We review where it appears, fix it with your team, and check it was not already used against you.

Talk to our team

T Academy

Stop writing it in the first place

Learn to build software and systems without weaknesses like this one, with practice on real hosts in your browser, every objective checked on the machine.

Start free

Source: MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration, CWE version 4.19.1. CWE is a trademark of The MITRE Corporation.