ol5u8o2ka38be34j62ktnefji390jhro-a-fc-opensocial.googleusercontent.com
Report generated at Sat Sep 01 08:32:42 EDT 2012.International in scope and free for public use
XSS.Cx is a Crawler and Injection Reporting Tool
1. Cross-site scripting (reflected)
2. Cross-domain Referer leakage
3. Content type incorrectly stated
3.1. http://ol5u8o2ka38be34j62ktnefji390jhro-a-fc-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/ifr
1. Cross-site scripting (reflected) next
Summary
| Severity: | High |
| Confidence: | Certain |
| Host: | http://ol5u8o2ka38be |
| Path: | /gadgets/ifr |
Issue detail
The value of the url request parameter is copied into a JavaScript rest-of-line comment. The payload dd498%0aalert(1)/alert(1)//44c3e42d1ac in the application's response.
This proof-of-concept attack demonstrates that it is possible to inject arbitrary JavaScript into the application's response.
Remediation detail
Echoing user-controllable data within a script context is inherently dangerous and can make XSS attacks difficult to prevent. If at all possible, the application should avoid echoing user data within this context.Issue background
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.
Remediation background
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).
Request
| GET /gadgets/ifr?url=http:/ Host: ol5u8o2ka38be34j62kt Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0 Accept: application/xml User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.10 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/8.0.552.224 Safari/534.10 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate,sdch Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.8 Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,* Cookie: __utmz=209791819 |
Response
| HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request P3P: CP="CAO PSA OUR" Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:39:24 GMT Expires: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:39:24 GMT Cache-Control: private, max-age=0 X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block Server: GSE Content-Length: 116 Unable to retrieve spec for http://fcgadgets.appspot alert(1)//44c3e42d1ac. HTTP error 400 |
2. Cross-domain Referer leakage previous next
Summary
| Severity: | Information |
| Confidence: | Certain |
| Host: | http://ol5u8o2ka38be |
| Path: | /gadgets/ifr |
Issue detail
The page was loaded from a URL containing a query string:- http://ol5u8o2ka38be
34j62ktnefji390jhro-a-fc -opensocial.googleus ercontent.com/gadgets/ifr ?url=http://fcgadgets .appspot.com/spec/shareit .xml&container=peopl esense&parent=http://www .cloudscan.me/&mid=0&view =profile&libs=google.blog &d=0.554.6&lang=en&view -params=%7B%22skin%22:%7B %22FACE_SIZE%22:%2232%22, %22HEIGHT%22:%22200%22, %22TITLE%22:%22Share+it %22,%22BORDER_COLOR%22: %22transparent%22, %22ENDCAP_BG_COLOR%22: %22transparent%22, %22ENDCAP_TEXT_COLOR%22: %22%23666666%22,%22ENDCAP _LINK_COLOR%22:%22 %233d74a5%22,%22ALTERNATE _BG_COLOR%22:%22tran sparent%22,%22CONTENT_BG _COLOR%22:%22transparent %22,%22CONTENT_LINK_COLOR %22:%22%233d74a5%22, %22CONTENT_TEXT_COLOR%22: %22%23666666%22, %22CONTENT_SECONDARY_LINK _COLOR%22:%22%233d74a5%22 ,%22CONTENT_SECONDARY _TEXT_COLOR%22:%22 %23666666%22,%22CONTENT _HEADLINE_COLOR%22:%22 %23666666%22,%22FONT_FACE %22:%22normal+normal+13px +Arial,+Tahoma,+Helvetica ,+FreeSans,+sans-serif%22 %7D%7D&communityId =00129212639365482611 &caller=http://www .cloudscan.me/
- http://fcgadgets.blogspot
.com/
Issue background
When a web browser makes a request for a resource, it typically adds an HTTP header, called the "Referer" header, indicating the URL of the resource from which the request originated. This occurs in numerous situations, for example when a web page loads an image or script, or when a user clicks on a link or submits a form.If the resource being requested resides on a different domain, then the Referer header is still generally included in the cross-domain request. If the originating URL contains any sensitive information within its query string, such as a session token, then this information will be transmitted to the other domain. If the other domain is not fully trusted by the application, then this may lead to a security compromise.
You should review the contents of the information being transmitted to other domains, and also determine whether those domains are fully trusted by the originating application.
Today's browsers may withhold the Referer header in some situations (for example, when loading a non-HTTPS resource from a page that was loaded over HTTPS, or when a Refresh directive is issued), but this behaviour should not be relied upon to protect the originating URL from disclosure.
Note also that if users can author content within the application then an attacker may be able to inject links referring to a domain they control in order to capture data from URLs used within the application.
Issue remediation
The application should never transmit any sensitive information within the URL query string. In addition to being leaked in the Referer header, such information may be logged in various locations and may be visible on-screen to untrusted parties.Request
| GET /gadgets/ifr?url=http:/ Host: ol5u8o2ka38be34j62kt Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0 Accept: application/xml User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.10 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/8.0.552.224 Safari/534.10 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate,sdch Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.8 Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,* Cookie: __utmz=209791819 |
Response
| HTTP/1.1 200 OK P3P: CP="CAO PSA OUR" Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Expires: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:32:01 GMT Cache-Control: private,max-age=300 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:27:01 GMT X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block Server: GSE Content-Length: 113134 <html><head><style type="text/css">body,td ...[SNIP]... <div id="paging_controls" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 0px 4px 6px;"> <a href="http://fcgadgets ...[SNIP]... |
3. Content type incorrectly stated previous
There are 2 instances of this issue:
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.3.1. http://ol5u8o2ka38be34j62ktnefji390jhro-a-fc-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/ifr next
Summary
| Severity: | Information |
| Confidence: | Firm |
| Host: | http://ol5u8o2ka38be |
| Path: | /gadgets/ifr |
Issue detail
The response contains the following Content-type statement:- Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Request
| GET /gadgets/ifr HTTP/1.1 Host: ol5u8o2ka38be34j62kt Accept: */* Accept-Language: en User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0) Connection: close Cookie: __utmz=209791819 |
Response
| HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request P3P: CP="CAO PSA OUR" Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:33:48 GMT Expires: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:33:48 GMT Cache-Control: private, max-age=0 X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block Server: GSE Connection: close Missing or malformed url parameter |
3.2. http://ol5u8o2ka38be34j62ktnefji390jhro-a-fc-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/makeRequest previous
Summary
| Severity: | Information |
| Confidence: | Firm |
| Host: | http://ol5u8o2ka38be |
| Path: | /gadgets/makeRequest |
Issue detail
The response contains the following Content-type statement:- Content-Type: application/json; charset=UTF-8
Request
| GET /gadgets/makeRequest Host: ol5u8o2ka38be34j62kt Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Referer: http://ol5u8o2ka38be Accept: */* User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.10 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/8.0.552.224 Safari/534.10 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate,sdch Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.8 Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,* Cookie: __utmz=209791819 |
Response
| HTTP/1.1 200 OK Expires: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:27:03 GMT Cache-Control: public,max-age=3600 Content-Disposition: attachment;filename=p.txt Content-Type: application/json; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:27:03 GMT X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block Server: GSE Content-Length: 560 throw 1; < don't be evil' >{"http://fcgadgets ...[SNIP]... |
Report generated by CloudScan Vulnerability Crawler at Wed Jan 12 13:22:27 CST 2011.