ZAP Scanning Report

The Path Traversal attack technique allows an attacker access to files, directories, and commands that potentially reside outside the web document root directory. An attacker may manipulate a URL in such a way that the web site will execute or reveal the contents of arbitrary files anywhere on the web server. Any device that exposes an HTTP-based interface is potentially vulnerable to Path Traversal.

Most web sites restrict user access to a specific portion of the file-system, typically called the "web document root" or "CGI root" directory. These directories contain the files intended for user access and the executable necessary to drive web application functionality. To access files or execute commands anywhere on the file-system, Path Traversal attacks will utilize the ability of special-characters sequences.

The most basic Path Traversal attack uses the "../" special-character sequence to alter the resource location requested in the URL. Although most popular web servers will prevent this technique from escaping the web document root, alternate encodings of the "../" sequence may help bypass the security filters. These method variations include valid and invalid Unicode-encoding ("..%u2216" or "..%c0%af") of the forward slash character, backslash characters ("..\") on Windows-based servers, URL encoded characters "%2e%2e%2f"), and double URL encoding ("..%255c") of the backslash character.

Even if the web server properly restricts Path Traversal attempts in the URL path, a web application itself may still be vulnerable due to improper handling of user-supplied input. This is a common problem of web applications that use template mechanisms or load static text from files. In variations of the attack, the original URL parameter value is substituted with the file name of one of the web application's dynamic scripts. Consequently, the results can reveal source code because the file is interpreted as text instead of an executable script. These techniques often employ additional special characters such as the dot (".") to reveal the listing of the current working directory, or "%00" NULL characters in order to bypass rudimentary file extension checks.

Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use an allow list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs (i.e., do not rely on a deny list). However, deny lists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if you are expecting colors such as "red" or "blue."

For filenames, use stringent allow lists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses, and exclude directory separators such as "/". Use an allow list of allowable file extensions.

Warning: if you attempt to cleanse your data, then do so that the end result is not in the form that can be dangerous. A sanitizing mechanism can remove characters such as '.' and ';' which may be required for some exploits. An attacker can try to fool the sanitizing mechanism into "cleaning" data into a dangerous form. Suppose the attacker injects a '.' inside a filename (e.g. "sensi.tiveFile") and the sanitizing mechanism removes the character resulting in the valid filename, "sensitiveFile". If the input data are now assumed to be safe, then the file may be compromised.

Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated. Make sure that your application does not decode the same input twice. Such errors could be used to bypass allow list schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.

Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links.

Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.

When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.

Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by your software.

OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows you to specify restrictions on file operations.

This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise.

No Anti-CSRF tokens were found in a HTML submission form.

A cross-site request forgery is an attack that involves forcing a victim to send an HTTP request to a target destination without their knowledge or intent in order to perform an action as the victim. The underlying cause is application functionality using predictable URL/form actions in a repeatable way. The nature of the attack is that CSRF exploits the trust that a web site has for a user. By contrast, cross-site scripting (XSS) exploits the trust that a user has for a web site. Like XSS, CSRF attacks are not necessarily cross-site, but they can be. Cross-site request forgery is also known as CSRF, XSRF, one-click attack, session riding, confused deputy, and sea surf.

CSRF attacks are effective in a number of situations, including:

* The victim has an active session on the target site.

* The victim is authenticated via HTTP auth on the target site.

* The victim is on the same local network as the target site.

CSRF has primarily been used to perform an action against a target site using the victim's privileges, but recent techniques have been discovered to disclose information by gaining access to the response. The risk of information disclosure is dramatically increased when the target site is vulnerable to XSS, because XSS can be used as a platform for CSRF, allowing the attack to operate within the bounds of the same-origin policy.

Phase: 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.

Phase: Implementation

Ensure that your application is free of cross-site scripting issues, because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.

Phase: Architecture and Design

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).

Note that this can be bypassed using XSS.

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.

Note that this can be bypassed using XSS.

Use the ESAPI Session Management control.

This control includes a component for CSRF.

Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.

Phase: Implementation

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.

A cross-site request forgery is an attack that involves forcing a victim to send an HTTP request to a target destination without their knowledge or intent in order to perform an action as the victim. The underlying cause is application functionality using predictable URL/form actions in a repeatable way. The nature of the attack is that CSRF exploits the trust that a web site has for a user. By contrast, cross-site scripting (XSS) exploits the trust that a user has for a web site. Like XSS, CSRF attacks are not necessarily cross-site, but they can be. Cross-site request forgery is also known as CSRF, XSRF, one-click attack, session riding, confused deputy, and sea surf.

CSRF attacks are effective in a number of situations, including:

* The victim has an active session on the target site.

* The victim is authenticated via HTTP auth on the target site.

* The victim is on the same local network as the target site.

CSRF has primarily been used to perform an action against a target site using the victim's privileges, but recent techniques have been discovered to disclose information by gaining access to the response. The risk of information disclosure is dramatically increased when the target site is vulnerable to XSS, because XSS can be used as a platform for CSRF, allowing the attack to operate within the bounds of the same-origin policy.

Phase: 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.

Phase: Implementation

Ensure that your application is free of cross-site scripting issues, because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.

Phase: Architecture and Design

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).

Note that this can be bypassed using XSS.

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.

Note that this can be bypassed using XSS.

Use the ESAPI Session Management control.

This control includes a component for CSRF.

Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.

Phase: Implementation

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.

Content Security Policy (CSP) is an added layer of security that helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS) and data injection attacks. These attacks are used for everything from data theft to site defacement or distribution of malware. CSP provides a set of standard HTTP headers that allow website owners to declare approved sources of content that browsers should be allowed to load on that page — covered types are JavaScript, CSS, HTML frames, fonts, images and embeddable objects such as Java applets, ActiveX, audio and video files.

Ensure that your web server, application server, load balancer, etc. is configured to set the Content-Security-Policy header, to achieve optimal browser support: "Content-Security-Policy" for Chrome 25+, Firefox 23+ and Safari 7+, "X-Content-Security-Policy" for Firefox 4.0+ and Internet Explorer 10+, and "X-WebKit-CSP" for Chrome 14+ and Safari 6+.

The response does not include either Content-Security-Policy with 'frame-ancestors' directive or X-Frame-Options to protect against 'ClickJacking' attacks.

Modern Web browsers support the Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options HTTP headers. Ensure one of them is set on all web pages returned by your site/app.

If you expect the page to be framed only by pages on your server (e.g. it's part of a FRAMESET) then you'll want to use SAMEORIGIN, otherwise if you never expect the page to be framed, you should use DENY. Alternatively consider implementing Content Security Policy's "frame-ancestors" directive.

1 proxy server(s) were detected or fingerprinted. This information helps a potential attacker to determine

- A list of targets for an attack against the application.

- Potential vulnerabilities on the proxy servers that service the application.

- The presence or absence of any proxy-based components that might cause attacks against the application to be detected, prevented, or mitigated.

Disable the 'TRACE' method on the proxy servers, as well as the origin web/application server.

Disable the 'OPTIONS' method on the proxy servers, as well as the origin web/application server, if it is not required for other purposes, such as 'CORS' (Cross Origin Resource Sharing).

Configure the web and application servers with custom error pages, to prevent 'fingerprintable' product-specific error pages being leaked to the user in the event of HTTP errors, such as 'TRACK' requests for non-existent pages.

Configure all proxies, application servers, and web servers to prevent disclosure of the technology and version information in the 'Server' and 'X-Powered-By' HTTP response headers.

The web server is configured to serve responses to ambiguous URLs in a manner that is likely to lead to confusion about the correct "relative path" for the URL. Resources (CSS, images, etc.) are also specified in the page response using relative, rather than absolute URLs. In an attack, if the web browser parses the "cross-content" response in a permissive manner, or can be tricked into permissively parsing the "cross-content" response, using techniques such as framing, then the web browser may be fooled into interpreting HTML as CSS (or other content types), leading to an XSS vulnerability.

Web servers and frameworks should be updated to be configured to not serve responses to ambiguous URLs in such a way that the relative path of such URLs could be mis-interpreted by components on either the client side, or server side.

Within the application, the correct use of the "<base>" HTML tag in the HTTP response will unambiguously specify the base URL for all relative URLs in the document.

Use the "Content-Type" HTTP response header to make it harder for the attacker to force the web browser to mis-interpret the content type of the response.

Use the "X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff" HTTP response header to prevent the web browser from "sniffing" the content type of the response.

Use a modern DOCTYPE such as "<!doctype html>" to prevent the page from being rendered in the web browser using "Quirks Mode", since this results in the content type being ignored by the web browser.

Specify the "X-Frame-Options" HTTP response header to prevent Quirks Mode from being enabled in the web browser using framing attacks.

The identified library jquery, version 2.1.1 is vulnerable.

Please upgrade to the latest version of jquery.

Repeated GET requests: drop a different cookie each time, followed by normal request with all cookies to stabilize session, compare responses against original baseline GET. This can reveal areas where cookie based authentication/attributes are not actually enforced.

A cookie has been set without the secure flag, which means that the cookie can be accessed via unencrypted connections.

Whenever a cookie contains sensitive information or is a session token, then it should always be passed using an encrypted channel. Ensure that the secure flag is set for cookies containing such sensitive information.

A cookie has been set without the SameSite attribute, which means that the cookie can be sent as a result of a 'cross-site' request. The SameSite attribute is an effective counter measure to cross-site request forgery, cross-site script inclusion, and timing attacks.

Ensure that the SameSite attribute is set to either 'lax' or ideally 'strict' for all cookies.

The page includes one or more script files from a third-party domain.

Ensure JavaScript source files are loaded from only trusted sources, and the sources can't be controlled by end users of the application.

A timestamp was disclosed by the application/web server - Unix