HTTP header injection vulnerabilities arise when user-supplied data is copied into a response header in an unsafe way. If an attacker can inject newline characters into the header, then they can inject new HTTP headers and also, by injecting an empty line, break out of the headers into the message body and write arbitrary content into the application's response.
Various kinds of attack can be delivered via HTTP header injection vulnerabilities. Any attack that can be delivered via cross-site scripting can usually be delivered via header injection, because the attacker can construct a request which causes arbitrary JavaScript to appear within the response body. Further, it is sometimes possible to leverage header injection vulnerabilities to poison the cache of any proxy server via which users access the application. Here, an attacker sends a crafted request which results in a "split" response containing arbitrary content. If the proxy server can be manipulated to associate the injected response with another URL used within the application, then the attacker can perform a "stored" attack against this URL which will compromise other users who request that URL in future.
Issue remediation
If possible, applications should avoid copying user-controllable data into HTTP response headers. If this is unavoidable, then the data should be strictly validated to prevent header injection attacks. In most situations, it will be appropriate to allow only short alphanumeric strings to be copied into headers, and any other input should be rejected. At a minimum, input containing any characters with ASCII codes less than 0x20 should be rejected.
The value of REST URL parameter 1 is copied into the Location response header. The payload 48f21%0d%0a6c59ce1f6da was submitted in the REST URL parameter 1. This caused a response containing an injected HTTP header.
Request
GET /48f21%0d%0a6c59ce1f6da/Layout9.js HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
Response
HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:03:24 GMT Location: http://www.optimum.net/48f21 6c59ce1f6da/Layout9.js Connection: close
<HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"><TITLE>Not Found</TITLE></HEAD> <H1>Not Found</H1> The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followe ...[SNIP]...
The value of REST URL parameter 1 is copied into the Location response header. The payload 21833%0d%0a0e49c2b7c53 was submitted in the REST URL parameter 1. This caused a response containing an injected HTTP header.
Request
GET /21833%0d%0a0e49c2b7c53/IDRecovery HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
Response
HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:08:13 GMT Location: http://www.optimum.net/21833 0e49c2b7c53/IDRecovery Connection: close
<HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"><TITLE>Not Found</TITLE></HEAD> <H1>Not Found</H1> The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followe ...[SNIP]...
The value of REST URL parameter 1 is copied into the Location response header. The payload ffaf5%0d%0a630d44ee44d was submitted in the REST URL parameter 1. This caused a response containing an injected HTTP header.
Request
GET /ffaf5%0d%0a630d44ee44d/PasswordReset HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
Response
HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:08:14 GMT Location: http://www.optimum.net/ffaf5 630d44ee44d/PasswordReset Connection: close
<HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"><TITLE>Not Found</TITLE></HEAD> <H1>Not Found</H1> The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followe ...[SNIP]...
The value of REST URL parameter 1 is copied into the Location response header. The payload 866cb%0d%0af64ef4b7a67 was submitted in the REST URL parameter 1. This caused a response containing an injected HTTP header.
Request
GET /866cb%0d%0af64ef4b7a67/Process/ID/SignInByAccountNumber HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
Response
HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:08:23 GMT Location: http://www.optimum.net/866cb f64ef4b7a67/Process/ID/SignInByAccountNumber Connection: close
<HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"><TITLE>Not Found</TITLE></HEAD> <H1>Not Found</H1> The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followe ...[SNIP]...
2. Cross-site scripting (reflected)previousnext There are 3 instances of this issue:
Reflected cross-site scripting vulnerabilities arise when data is copied from a request and echoed into the application's immediate response in an unsafe way. An attacker can use the vulnerability to construct a request which, if issued by another application user, will cause JavaScript code supplied by the attacker to execute within the user's browser in the context of that user's session with the application.
The attacker-supplied code can perform a wide variety of actions, such as stealing the victim's session token or login credentials, performing arbitrary actions on the victim's behalf, and logging their keystrokes.
Users can be induced to issue the attacker's crafted request in various ways. For example, the attacker can send a victim a link containing a malicious URL in an email or instant message. They can submit the link to popular web sites that allow content authoring, for example in blog comments. And they can create an innocuous looking web site which causes anyone viewing it to make arbitrary cross-domain requests to the vulnerable application (using either the GET or the POST method).
The security impact of cross-site scripting vulnerabilities is dependent upon the nature of the vulnerable application, the kinds of data and functionality which it contains, and the other applications which belong to the same domain and organisation. If the application is used only to display non-sensitive public content, with no authentication or access control functionality, then a cross-site scripting flaw may be considered low risk. However, if the same application resides on a domain which can access cookies for other more security-critical applications, then the vulnerability could be used to attack those other applications, and so may be considered high risk. Similarly, if the organisation which owns the application is a likely target for phishing attacks, then the vulnerability could be leveraged to lend credibility to such attacks, by injecting Trojan functionality into the vulnerable application, and exploiting users' trust in the organisation in order to capture credentials for other applications which it owns. In many kinds of application, such as those providing online banking functionality, cross-site scripting should always be considered high risk.
Issue remediation
In most situations where user-controllable data is copied into application responses, cross-site scripting attacks can be prevented using two layers of defenses:
Input should be validated as strictly as possible on arrival, given the kind of content which it is expected to contain. For example, personal names should consist of alphabetical and a small range of typographical characters, and be relatively short; a year of birth should consist of exactly four numerals; email addresses should match a well-defined regular expression. Input which fails the validation should be rejected, not sanitised.
User input should be HTML-encoded at any point where it is copied into application responses. All HTML metacharacters, including < > " ' and =, should be replaced with the corresponding HTML entities (< > etc).
In cases where the application's functionality allows users to author content using a restricted subset of HTML tags and attributes (for example, blog comments which allow limited formatting and linking), it is necessary to parse the supplied HTML to validate that it does not use any dangerous syntax; this is a non-trivial task.
2.1. https://idcenter.services.optimum.net/Services/IDRecovery [name of an arbitrarily supplied request parameter]previousnext
Summary
Severity:
High
Confidence:
Certain
Host:
https://idcenter.services.optimum.net
Path:
/Services/IDRecovery
Issue detail
The name of an arbitrarily supplied request parameter is copied into the value of an HTML tag attribute which is encapsulated in double quotation marks. The payload c1423"><script>alert(1)</script>6d65d56daa9 was submitted in the name of an arbitrarily supplied request parameter. This input was echoed unmodified in the application's response.
This proof-of-concept attack demonstrates that it is possible to inject arbitrary JavaScript into the application's response.
Request
GET /Services/IDRecovery?c1423"><script>alert(1)</script>6d65d56daa9=1 HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
2.2. https://idcenter.services.optimum.net/Services/PasswordReset [name of an arbitrarily supplied request parameter]previousnext
Summary
Severity:
High
Confidence:
Certain
Host:
https://idcenter.services.optimum.net
Path:
/Services/PasswordReset
Issue detail
The name of an arbitrarily supplied request parameter is copied into the value of an HTML tag attribute which is encapsulated in double quotation marks. The payload ddf25"><script>alert(1)</script>34472d8a58 was submitted in the name of an arbitrarily supplied request parameter. This input was echoed unmodified in the application's response.
This proof-of-concept attack demonstrates that it is possible to inject arbitrary JavaScript into the application's response.
Request
GET /Services/PasswordReset?ddf25"><script>alert(1)</script>34472d8a58=1 HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
2.3. https://idcenter.services.optimum.net/Services/Process/ID/SignInByAccountNumber [name of an arbitrarily supplied request parameter]previousnext
Summary
Severity:
High
Confidence:
Certain
Host:
https://idcenter.services.optimum.net
Path:
/Services/Process/ID/SignInByAccountNumber
Issue detail
The name of an arbitrarily supplied request parameter is copied into the value of an HTML tag attribute which is encapsulated in double quotation marks. The payload 9503b"><script>alert(1)</script>86693ad60ef was submitted in the name of an arbitrarily supplied request parameter. This input was echoed unmodified in the application's response.
This proof-of-concept attack demonstrates that it is possible to inject arbitrary JavaScript into the application's response.
Request
GET /Services/Process/ID/SignInByAccountNumber?9503b"><script>alert(1)</script>86693ad60ef=1 HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
If the secure flag is set on a cookie, then browsers will not submit the cookie in any requests that use an unencrypted HTTP connection, thereby preventing the cookie from being trivially intercepted by an attacker monitoring network traffic. If the secure flag is not set, then the cookie will be transmitted in clear-text if the user visits any HTTP URLs within the cookie's scope. An attacker may be able to induce this event by feeding a user suitable links, either directly or via another web site. Even if the domain which issued the cookie does not host any content that is accessed over HTTP, an attacker may be able to use links of the form http://example.com:443/ to perform the same attack.
Issue remediation
The secure flag should be set on all cookies that are used for transmitting sensitive data when accessing content over HTTPS. If cookies are used to transmit session tokens, then areas of the application that are accessed over HTTPS should employ their own session handling mechanism, and the session tokens used should never be transmitted over unencrypted communications.
The highlighted cookies appear to contain session tokens, which may increase the risk associated with this issue. You should review the contents of the cookies to determine their function.
Request
GET /Services/Process/ID/SignInByAccountNumber HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
The cookie does not appear to contain a session token, which may reduce the risk associated with this issue. You should review the contents of the cookie to determine its function.
Request
GET /Partner/Layout9.js HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
Response
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:07:55 GMT Set-Cookie: ssuid=1299586076229014457; expires=Friday, 05-Mar-2021 12:07:56 GMT; Path=/ Content-type: text/html Content-length: 1521 Connection: close
var sourceCode = " <!--BREAK--> Marker 'Unknown jsp_part: null' not found !!! <!--BREAK-->"; var baseHref = "http://www.optonline.net/"; var baseHref2 = "http://www.optonline.net/"; // document.writ ...[SNIP]...
4. Cookie without HttpOnly flag setpreviousnext There are 2 instances of this issue:
If the HttpOnly attribute is set on a cookie, then the cookie's value cannot be read or set by client-side JavaScript. This measure can prevent certain client-side attacks, such as cross-site scripting, from trivially capturing the cookie's value via an injected script.
Issue remediation
There is usually no good reason not to set the HttpOnly flag on all cookies. Unless you specifically require legitimate client-side scripts within your application to read or set a cookie's value, you should set the HttpOnly flag by including this attribute within the relevant Set-cookie directive.
You should be aware that the restrictions imposed by the HttpOnly flag can potentially be circumvented in some circumstances, and that numerous other serious attacks can be delivered by client-side script injection, aside from simple cookie stealing.
The highlighted cookies appear to contain session tokens, which may increase the risk associated with this issue. You should review the contents of the cookies to determine their function.
Request
GET /Services/Process/ID/SignInByAccountNumber HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
The cookie does not appear to contain a session token, which may reduce the risk associated with this issue. You should review the contents of the cookie to determine its function.
Request
GET /Partner/Layout9.js HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
Response
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:07:55 GMT Set-Cookie: ssuid=1299586076229014457; expires=Friday, 05-Mar-2021 12:07:56 GMT; Path=/ Content-type: text/html Content-length: 1521 Connection: close
var sourceCode = " <!--BREAK--> Marker 'Unknown jsp_part: null' not found !!! <!--BREAK-->"; var baseHref = "http://www.optonline.net/"; var baseHref2 = "http://www.optonline.net/"; // document.writ ...[SNIP]...
Unless directed otherwise, browsers may store a local cached copy of content received from web servers. Some browsers, including Internet Explorer, cache content accessed via HTTPS. If sensitive information in application responses is stored in the local cache, then this may be retrieved by other users who have access to the same computer at a future time.
Issue remediation
The application should return caching directives instructing browsers not to store local copies of any sensitive data. Often, this can be achieved by configuring the web server to prevent caching for relevant paths within the web root. Alternatively, most web development platforms allow you to control the server's caching directives from within individual scripts. Ideally, the web server should return the following HTTP headers in all responses containing sensitive content:
Cache-control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache
Request
GET /Partner/Layout9.js HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
Response
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:07:55 GMT Set-Cookie: ssuid=1299586076229014457; expires=Friday, 05-Mar-2021 12:07:56 GMT; Path=/ Content-type: text/html Content-length: 1521 Connection: close
var sourceCode = " <!--BREAK--> Marker 'Unknown jsp_part: null' not found !!! <!--BREAK-->"; var baseHref = "http://www.optonline.net/"; var baseHref2 = "http://www.optonline.net/"; // document.writ ...[SNIP]...
If a web response states that it contains HTML content but does not specify a character set, then the browser may analyse the HTML and attempt to determine which character set it appears to be using. Even if the majority of the HTML actually employs a standard character set such as UTF-8, the presence of non-standard characters anywhere in the response may cause the browser to interpret the content using a different character set. This can have unexpected results, and can lead to cross-site scripting vulnerabilities in which non-standard encodings like UTF-7 can be used to bypass the application's defensive filters.
In most cases, the absence of a charset directive does not constitute a security flaw, particularly if the response contains static content. You should review the contents of the response and the context in which it appears to determine whether any vulnerability exists.
Issue remediation
For every response containing HTML content, the application should include within the Content-type header a directive specifying a standard recognised character set, for example charset=ISO-8859-1.
Request
GET /Partner/Layout9.js HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
Response
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:07:55 GMT Set-Cookie: ssuid=1299586076229014457; expires=Friday, 05-Mar-2021 12:07:56 GMT; Path=/ Content-type: text/html Content-length: 1521 Connection: close
var sourceCode = " <!--BREAK--> Marker 'Unknown jsp_part: null' not found !!! <!--BREAK-->"; var baseHref = "http://www.optonline.net/"; var baseHref2 = "http://www.optonline.net/"; // document.writ ...[SNIP]...
The response contains the following Content-type statement:
Content-type: text/html
The response states that it contains HTML. However, it actually appears to contain script.
Issue background
If a web response specifies an incorrect content type, then browsers may process the response in unexpected ways. If the specified content type is a renderable text-based format, then the browser will usually attempt to parse and render the response in that format. If the specified type is an image format, then the browser will usually detect the anomaly and will analyse the actual content and attempt to determine its MIME type. Either case can lead to unexpected results, and if the content contains any user-controllable data may lead to cross-site scripting or other client-side vulnerabilities.
In most cases, the presence of an incorrect content type statement does not constitute a security flaw, particularly if the response contains static content. You should review the contents of the response and the context in which it appears to determine whether any vulnerability exists.
Issue remediation
For every response containing a message body, the application should include a single Content-type header which correctly and unambiguously states the MIME type of the content in the response body.
Request
GET /Partner/Layout9.js HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
Response
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:07:55 GMT Set-Cookie: ssuid=1299586076229014457; expires=Friday, 05-Mar-2021 12:07:56 GMT; Path=/ Content-type: text/html Content-length: 1521 Connection: close
var sourceCode = " <!--BREAK--> Marker 'Unknown jsp_part: null' not found !!! <!--BREAK-->"; var baseHref = "http://www.optonline.net/"; var baseHref2 = "http://www.optonline.net/"; // document.writ ...[SNIP]...
8. Content type is not specifiedpreviousnext There are 2 instances of this issue:
If a web response does not specify a content type, then the browser will usually analyse the response and attempt to determine the MIME type of its content. This can have unexpected results, and if the content contains any user-controllable data may lead to cross-site scripting or other client-side vulnerabilities.
In most cases, the absence of a content type statement does not constitute a security flaw, particularly if the response contains static content. You should review the contents of the response and the context in which it appears to determine whether any vulnerability exists.
Issue remediation
For every response containing a message body, the application should include a single Content-type header which correctly and unambiguously states the MIME type of the content in the response body.
GET /Services/IDRecovery HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
GET /Services/PasswordReset HTTP/1.1 Host: idcenter.services.optimum.net Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close
The server presented a valid, trusted SSL certificate. This issue is purely informational.
The server presented the following certificates:
Server certificate
Issued to:
idcenter.services.optimum.net
Issued by:
VeriSign Class 3 Extended Validation SSL SGC CA
Valid from:
Wed Jan 20 18:00:00 CST 2010
Valid to:
Sat Jan 21 17:59:59 CST 2012
Certificate chain #1
Issued to:
VeriSign Class 3 Extended Validation SSL SGC CA
Issued by:
VeriSign Class 3 Public Primary Certification Authority - G5
Valid from:
Tue Nov 07 18:00:00 CST 2006
Valid to:
Mon Nov 07 17:59:59 CST 2016
Certificate chain #2
Issued to:
VeriSign Class 3 Public Primary Certification Authority - G5
Issued by:
Class 3 Public Primary Certification Authority
Valid from:
Tue Nov 07 18:00:00 CST 2006
Valid to:
Sun Nov 07 17:59:59 CST 2021
Certificate chain #3
Issued to:
Class 3 Public Primary Certification Authority
Issued by:
Class 3 Public Primary Certification Authority
Valid from:
Sun Jan 28 18:00:00 CST 1996
Valid to:
Wed Aug 02 18:59:59 CDT 2028
Issue background
SSL helps to protect the confidentiality and integrity of information in transit between the browser and server, and to provide authentication of the server's identity. To serve this purpose, the server must present an SSL certificate which is valid for the server's hostname, is issued by a trusted authority and is valid for the current date. If any one of these requirements is not met, SSL connections to the server will not provide the full protection for which SSL is designed.
It should be noted that various attacks exist against SSL in general, and in the context of HTTPS web connections. It may be possible for a determined and suitably-positioned attacker to compromise SSL connections without user detection even when a valid SSL certificate is used.Report generated by XSS.CX at Tue Mar 08 07:16:43 CST 2011.