| Name |
HTTP Response Splitting |
|
| Likelyhood of attack |
Typical severity |
| Medium |
High |
|
| Summary |
An adversary manipulates and injects malicious content, in the form of secret unauthorized HTTP responses, into a single HTTP response from a vulnerable or compromised back-end HTTP agent (e.g., web server) or into an already spoofed HTTP response from an adversary controlled domain/site.
See CanPrecede relationships for possible consequences. |
| Prerequisites |
A vulnerable or compromised server or domain/site capable of allowing adversary to insert/inject malicious content that will appear in the server's response to target HTTP agents (e.g., proxies and users' web browsers). Differences in the way the two HTTP agents parse and interpret HTTP requests and its headers. HTTP headers capable of being user-manipulated. HTTP agents running on HTTP/1.0 or HTTP/1.1 that allow for Keep Alive mode, Pipelined queries, and Chunked queries and responses. |
| Execution Flow |
| Step |
Phase |
Description |
Techniques |
| 1 |
Exploit |
[Perform HTTP Response Splitting attack] Using knowledge discovered in the experiment section above, smuggle a message to cause one of the consequences. |
- Leverage techniques identified in the Experiment Phase.
|
| 2 |
Experiment |
[Cause differential HTTP responses by experimenting with identified HTTP Request vulnerabilities] The adversary sends maliciously crafted HTTP request to back-end HTTP infrastructure to inject adversary data (in the form of HTTP headers with custom strings and embedded web scripts and objects) into HTTP responses (intended for intermediary and/or front-end client/victim HTTP agents communicating with back-end HTTP infrastructure) for the purpose of interfering with the parsing of HTTP responses by intermediary and front-end client/victim HTTP agents. The intended consequences of the malicious HTTP request and the subsequent adversary injection and manipulation of HTTP responses to intermediary and front-end client/victim HTTP agents, will be observed to confirm applicability of identified vulnerabilities in the adversary's plan of attack. |
- Continue the monitoring of HTTP traffic.
-
Utilize different sequences of special characters (CR - Carriage Return, LF - Line Feed, HT - Horizontal Tab, SP - Space and etc.) to bypass filtering and back-end encoding and to embed:
additional HTTP Requests with their own headers
malicious web scripts into parameters of HTTP Request headers (e.g., browser cookies like Set-Cookie or Ajax web/browser object parameters like XMLHttpRequest)
adversary chosen encoding (e.g., UTF-7)
to utilize additional special characters (e.g., > and <) filtered by the target HTTP agent.
Note that certain special characters and character encoding may be applicable only to intermediary and front-end agents with rare configurations or that are not RFC compliant.
- Follow an unrecognized (sometimes a RFC compliant) HTTP header with a subsequent HTTP request to potentially cause the HTTP request to be ignored and interpreted as part of the preceding HTTP request.
|
|
| Solutions | Design: evaluate HTTP agents prior to deployment for parsing/interpretation discrepancies. Configuration: front-end HTTP agents notice ambiguous requests. Configuration: back-end HTTP agents reject ambiguous requests and close the network connection. Configuration: Disable reuse of back-end connections. Configuration: Use HTTP/2 for back-end connections. Configuration: Use the same web server software for front-end and back-end server. Implementation: Utilize a Web Application Firewall (WAF) that has built-in mitigation to detect abnormal requests/responses. Configuration: Install latest vendor security patches available for both intermediary and back-end HTTP infrastructure (i.e. proxies and web servers) Configuration: Ensure that HTTP infrastructure in the chain or network path utilize a strict uniform parsing process. Implementation: Utilize intermediary HTTP infrastructure capable of filtering and/or sanitizing user-input. |
| Related Weaknesses |
|
CWE ID
|
Description
|
| CWE-74 |
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection') |
| CWE-113 |
Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Response Splitting') |
| CWE-138 |
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements |
| CWE-436 |
Interpretation Conflict |
|
| Related CAPECS |
|
CAPEC ID
|
Description
|
| CAPEC-63 |
An adversary embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect. |
| CAPEC-105 |
An adversary abuses the flexibility and discrepancies in the parsing and interpretation of HTTP Request messages by different intermediary HTTP agents (e.g., load balancer, reverse proxy, web caching proxies, application firewalls, etc.) to split a single HTTP request into multiple unauthorized and malicious HTTP requests to a back-end HTTP agent (e.g., web server).
See CanPrecede relationships for possible consequences. |
| CAPEC-115 |
An attacker gains access to application, service, or device with the privileges of an authorized or privileged user by evading or circumventing an authentication mechanism. The attacker is therefore able to access protected data without authentication ever having taken place. |
| CAPEC-141 |
An attacker exploits the functionality of cache technologies to cause specific data to be cached that aids the attackers' objectives. This describes any attack whereby an attacker places incorrect or harmful material in cache. The targeted cache can be an application's cache (e.g. a web browser cache) or a public cache (e.g. a DNS or ARP cache). Until the cache is refreshed, most applications or clients will treat the corrupted cache value as valid. This can lead to a wide range of exploits including redirecting web browsers towards sites that install malware and repeatedly incorrect calculations based on the incorrect value. |
| CAPEC-148 |
An adversary modifies content to make it contain something other than what the original content producer intended while keeping the apparent source of the content unchanged. The term content spoofing is most often used to describe modification of web pages hosted by a target to display the adversary's content instead of the owner's content. However, any content can be spoofed, including the content of email messages, file transfers, or the content of other network communication protocols. Content can be modified at the source (e.g. modifying the source file for a web page) or in transit (e.g. intercepting and modifying a message between the sender and recipient). Usually, the adversary will attempt to hide the fact that the content has been modified, but in some cases, such as with web site defacement, this is not necessary. Content Spoofing can lead to malware exposure, financial fraud (if the content governs financial transactions), privacy violations, and other unwanted outcomes. |
| CAPEC-154 |
An adversary deceives an application or user and convinces them to request a resource from an unintended location. By spoofing the location, the adversary can cause an alternate resource to be used, often one that the adversary controls and can be used to help them achieve their malicious goals. |
| CAPEC-220 |
An adversary takes advantage of weaknesses in the protocol by which a client and server are communicating to perform unexpected actions. Communication protocols are necessary to transfer messages between client and server applications. Moreover, different protocols may be used for different types of interactions. |
| CAPEC-593 |
This type of attack involves an adversary that exploits weaknesses in an application's use of sessions in performing authentication. The adversary is able to steal or manipulate an active session and use it to gain unathorized access to the application. |
|
| Taxonomy: WASC |
|
Entry ID
|
Entry Name
|
| 25 |
HTTP Response Splitting |
|