I'm analysing a project that uses Spring Security and AngularJS. I know there is a CSRF vulnerability within a specifc form, but I'm unable to get my head around it.
The server sets a CSFR Token as a cookie (not HTTP only, not Secure) for each session. It remains the same for each session. On form submission, AnagularJS takes this cookie and appends it to a custom HTTP header, as shown below.
My understanding is that this is the best method of protecting a site, double submit. With the assumtion that it's already XSS secure, it will not be possible for another site to set a custom header on a HTTP request?
I've searched many forums and many say this is the best method of using a CSRF token, even better than putting within a hidden field in the form.
I'd like ask if anyone knows why this method isn't secure and if it is vulnerable to CSRF.
Many thanks!
P.S - I should add the CSRF token appears to be a randomly generated value, not linked to the session. If I use burpsuite to edit both the header and cookie, to any value, the server will still accept it.
I'm attempting to locate the CSRF vulnerability and then I can work on repairing it.
tl;dr; About the Same Origin Policy
I have a Grunt process which initiates an instance of express.js server. This was working absolutely fine up until just now when it started serving a blank page with the following appearing in the error log in the developer's console in Chrome (latest version):
XMLHttpRequest cannot load https://www.example.com/
No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested
resource. Origin 'http://localhost:4300' is therefore not allowed access.
What is stopping me from accessing the page?
tl;dr — When you want to read data, (mostly) using client-side JS, from a different server you need the server with the data to grant explicit permission to the code that wants the data.
There's a summary at the end and headings in the answer to make it easier to find the relevant parts. Reading everything is recommended though as it provides useful background for understanding the why that makes seeing how the how applies in different circumstances easier.
About the Same Origin Policy
This is the Same Origin Policy. It is a security feature implemented by browsers.
Your particular case is showing how it is implemented for XMLHttpRequest (and you'll get identical results if you were to use fetch), but it also applies to other things (such as images loaded onto a <canvas> or documents loaded into an <iframe>), just with slightly different implementations.
The standard scenario that demonstrates the need for the SOP can be demonstrated with three characters:
Alice is a person with a web browser
Bob runs a website (https://www.example.com/ in your example)
Mallory runs a website (http://localhost:4300 in your example)
Alice is logged into Bob's site and has some confidential data there. Perhaps it is a company intranet (accessible only to browsers on the LAN), or her online banking (accessible only with a cookie you get after entering a username and password).
Alice visits Mallory's website which has some JavaScript that causes Alice's browser to make an HTTP request to Bob's website (from her IP address with her cookies, etc). This could be as simple as using XMLHttpRequest and reading the responseText.
The browser's Same Origin Policy prevents that JavaScript from reading the data returned by Bob's website (which Bob and Alice don't want Mallory to access). (Note that you can, for example, display an image using an <img> element across origins because the content of the image is not exposed to JavaScript (or Mallory) … unless you throw canvas into the mix in which case you will generate a same-origin violation error).
Why the Same Origin Policy applies when you don't think it should
For any given URL it is possible that the SOP is not needed. A couple of common scenarios where this is the case are:
Alice, Bob, and Mallory are the same person.
Bob is providing entirely public information
… but the browser has no way of knowing if either of the above is true, so trust is not automatic and the SOP is applied. Permission has to be granted explicitly before the browser will give the data it has received from Bob to some other website.
Why the Same Origin Policy applies to JavaScript in a web page but little else
Outside the web page
Browser extensions*, the Network tab in browser developer tools, and applications like Postman are installed software. They aren't passing data from one website to the JavaScript belonging to a different website just because you visited that different website. Installing software usually takes a more conscious choice.
There isn't a third party (Mallory) who is considered a risk.
* Browser extensions do need to be written carefully to avoid cross-origin issues. See the Chrome documentation for example.
Inside the webpage
Most of the time, there isn't a great deal of information leakage when just showing something on a webpage.
If you use an <img> element to load an image, then it gets shown on the page, but very little information is exposed to Mallory. JavaScript can't read the image (unless you use a crossOrigin attribute to explicitly enable request permission with CORS) and then copy it to her server.
That said, some information does leak so, to quote Domenic Denicola (of Google):
The web's fundamental security model is the same origin policy. We
have several legacy exceptions to that rule from before that security
model was in place, with script tags being one of the most egregious
and most dangerous. (See the various "JSONP" attacks.)
Many years ago, perhaps with the introduction of XHR or web fonts (I
can't recall precisely), we drew a line in the sand, and said no new
web platform features would break the same origin policy. The existing
features need to be grandfathered in and subject to carefully-honed
and oft-exploited exceptions, for the sake of not breaking the web,
but we certainly can't add any more holes to our security policy.
This is why you need CORS permission to load fonts across origins.
Why you can display data on the page without reading it with JS
There are a number of circumstances where Mallory's site can cause a browser to fetch data from a third party and display it (e.g. by adding an <img> element to display an image). It isn't possible for Mallory's JavaScript to read the data in that resource though, only Alice's browser and Bob's server can do that, so it is still secure.
CORS
The Access-Control-Allow-Origin HTTP response header referred to in the error message is part of the CORS standard which allows Bob to explicitly grant permission to Mallory's site to access the data via Alice's browser.
A basic implementation would just include:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *
… in the response headers to permit any website to read the data.
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://example.com
… would allow only a specific site to access it, and Bob can dynamically generate that based on the Origin request header to permit multiple, but not all, sites to access it.
The specifics of how Bob sets that response header depend on Bob's HTTP server and/or server-side programming language. Users of Node.js/Express.js should use the well-documented CORS middleware. Users of other platforms should take a look at this collection of guides for various common configurations that might help.
NB: Some requests are complex and send a preflight OPTIONS request that the server will have to respond to before the browser will send the GET/POST/PUT/Whatever request that the JS wants to make. Implementations of CORS that only add Access-Control-Allow-Origin to specific URLs often get tripped up by this.
Obviously granting permission via CORS is something Bob would only do only if either:
The data was not private or
Mallory was trusted
How do I add these headers?
It depends on your server-side environment.
If you can, use a library designed to handle CORS as they will present you with simple options instead of having to deal with everything manually.
Enable-Cors.org has a list of documentation for specific platforms and frameworks that you might find useful.
But I'm not Bob!
There is no standard mechanism for Mallory to add this header because it has to come from Bob's website, which she does not control.
If Bob is running a public API then there might be a mechanism to turn on CORS (perhaps by formatting the request in a certain way, or a config option after logging into a Developer Portal site for Bob's site). This will have to be a mechanism implemented by Bob though. Mallory could read the documentation on Bob's site to see if something is available, or she could talk to Bob and ask him to implement CORS.
Error messages which mention "Response for preflight"
Some cross-origin requests are preflighted.
This happens when (roughly speaking) you try to make a cross-origin request that:
Includes credentials like cookies
Couldn't be generated with a regular HTML form (e.g. has custom headers or a Content-Type that you couldn't use in a form's enctype).
If you are correctly doing something that needs a preflight
In these cases then the rest of this answer still applies but you also need to make sure that the server can listen for the preflight request (which will be OPTIONS (and not GET, POST, or whatever you were trying to send) and respond to it with the right Access-Control-Allow-Origin header but also Access-Control-Allow-Methods and Access-Control-Allow-Headers to allow your specific HTTP methods or headers.
If you are triggering a preflight by mistake
Sometimes people make mistakes when trying to construct Ajax requests, and sometimes these trigger the need for a preflight. If the API is designed to allow cross-origin requests but doesn't require anything that would need a preflight, then this can break access.
Common mistakes that trigger this include:
trying to put Access-Control-Allow-Origin and other CORS response headers on the request. These don't belong on the request, don't do anything helpful (what would be the point of a permissions system where you could grant yourself permission?), and must appear only on the response.
trying to put a Content-Type: application/json header on a GET request that has no request body the content of which to describe (typically when the author confuses Content-Type and Accept).
In either of these cases, removing the extra request header will often be enough to avoid the need for a preflight (which will solve the problem when communicating with APIs that support simple requests but not preflighted requests).
Opaque responses (no-cors mode)
Sometimes you need to make an HTTP request, but you don't need to read the response. e.g. if you are posting a log message to the server for recording.
If you are using the fetch API (rather than XMLHttpRequest), then you can configure it to not try to use CORS.
Note that this won't let you do anything that you require CORS to do. You will not be able to read the response. You will not be able to make a request that requires a preflight.
It will let you make a simple request, not see the response, and not fill the Developer Console with error messages.
How to do it is explained by the Chrome error message given when you make a request using fetch and don't get permission to view the response with CORS:
Access to fetch at 'https://example.com/' from origin 'https://example.net' has been blocked by CORS policy: No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested resource. If an opaque response serves your needs, set the request's mode to 'no-cors' to fetch the resource with CORS disabled.
Thus:
fetch("http://example.com", { mode: "no-cors" });
Alternatives to CORS
JSONP
Bob could also provide the data using a hack like JSONP which is how people did cross-origin Ajax before CORS came along.
It works by presenting the data in the form of a JavaScript program that injects the data into Mallory's page.
It requires that Mallory trust Bob not to provide malicious code.
Note the common theme: The site providing the data has to tell the browser that it is OK for a third-party site to access the data it is sending to the browser.
Since JSONP works by appending a <script> element to load the data in the form of a JavaScript program that calls a function already in the page, attempting to use the JSONP technique on a URL that returns JSON will fail — typically with a CORB error — because JSON is not JavaScript.
Move the two resources to a single Origin
If the HTML document the JS runs in and the URL being requested are on the same origin (sharing the same scheme, hostname, and port) then the Same Origin Policy grants permission by default. CORS is not needed.
A Proxy
Mallory could use server-side code to fetch the data (which she could then pass from her server to Alice's browser through HTTP as usual).
It will either:
add CORS headers
convert the response to JSONP
exist on the same origin as the HTML document
That server-side code could be written & hosted by a third party (such as CORS Anywhere). Note the privacy implications of this: The third party can monitor who proxies what across their servers.
Bob wouldn't need to grant any permissions for that to happen.
There are no security implications here since that is just between Mallory and Bob. There is no way for Bob to think that Mallory is Alice and to provide Mallory with data that should be kept confidential between Alice and Bob.
Consequently, Mallory can only use this technique to read public data.
Do note, however, that taking content from someone else's website and displaying it on your own might be a violation of copyright and open you up to legal action.
Writing something other than a web app
As noted in the section "Why the Same Origin Policy only applies to JavaScript in a web page", you can avoid the SOP by not writing JavaScript in a webpage.
That doesn't mean you can't continue to use JavaScript and HTML, but you could distribute it using some other mechanism, such as Node-WebKit or PhoneGap.
Browser extensions
It is possible for a browser extension to inject the CORS headers in the response before the Same Origin Policy is applied.
These can be useful for development but are not practical for a production site (asking every user of your site to install a browser extension that disables a security feature of their browser is unreasonable).
They also tend to work only with simple requests (failing when handling preflight OPTIONS requests).
Having a proper development environment with a local development server
is usually a better approach.
Other security risks
Note that SOP / CORS do not mitigate XSS, CSRF, or SQL Injection attacks which need to be handled independently.
Summary
There is nothing you can do in your client-side code that will enable CORS access to someone else's server.
If you control the server the request is being made to: Add CORS permissions to it.
If you are friendly with the person who controls it: Get them to add CORS permissions to it.
If it is a public service:
Read their API documentation to see what they say about accessing it with client-side JavaScript:
They might tell you to use specific URLs
They might support JSONP
They might not support cross-origin access from client-side code at all (this might be a deliberate decision on security grounds, especially if you have to pass a personalized API Key in each request).
Make sure you aren't triggering a preflight request you don't need. The API might grant permission for simple requests but not preflighted requests.
If none of the above apply: Get the browser to talk to your server instead, and then have your server fetch the data from the other server and pass it on. (There are also third-party hosted services that attach CORS headers to publically accessible resources that you could use).
Target server must allowed cross-origin request. In order to allow it through express, simply handle http options request :
app.options('/url...', function(req, res, next){
res.header('Access-Control-Allow-Origin', "*");
res.header('Access-Control-Allow-Methods', 'POST');
res.header("Access-Control-Allow-Headers", "accept, content-type");
res.header("Access-Control-Max-Age", "1728000");
return res.sendStatus(200);
});
As this isn't mentioned in the accepted answer.
This is not the case for this exact question, but might help others that search for that problem
This is something you can do in your client-code to prevent CORS errors in some cases.
You can make use of Simple Requests.
In order to perform a 'Simple Requests' the request needs to meet several conditions. E.g. only allowing POST, GET and HEAD method, as well as only allowing some given Headers (you can find all conditions here).
If your client code does not explicit set affected Headers (e.g. "Accept") with a fix value in the request it might occur that some clients do set these Headers automatically with some "non-standard" values causing the server to not accept it as Simple Request - which will give you a CORS error.
This is happening because of the CORS error. CORS stands for Cross Origin Resource Sharing. In simple words, this error occurs when we try to access a domain/resource from another domain.
Read More about it here: CORS error with jquery
To fix this, if you have access to the other domain, you will have to allow Access-Control-Allow-Origin in the server. This can be added in the headers. You can enable this for all the requests/domains or a specific domain.
How to get a cross-origin resource sharing (CORS) post request working
These links may help
This CORS issue wasn't further elaborated (for other causes).
I'm having this issue currently under different reason.
My front end is returning 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header error as well.
Just that I've pointed the wrong URL so this header wasn't reflected properly (in which i kept presume it did). localhost (front end) -> call to non secured http (supposed to be https), make sure the API end point from front end is pointing to the correct protocol.
I got the same error in Chrome console.
My problem was, I was trying to go to the site using http:// instead of https://. So there was nothing to fix, just had to go to the same site using https.
This bug cost me 2 days. I checked my Server log, the Preflight Option request/response between browser Chrome/Edge and Server was ok. The main reason is that GET/POST/PUT/DELETE server response for XHTMLRequest must also have the following header:
access-control-allow-origin: origin
"origin" is in the request header (Browser will add it to request for you). for example:
Origin: http://localhost:4221
you can add response header like the following to accept for all:
access-control-allow-origin: *
or response header for a specific request like:
access-control-allow-origin: http://localhost:4221
The message in browsers is not clear to understand: "...The requested resource"
note that:
CORS works well for localhost. different port means different Domain.
if you get error message, check the CORS config on the server side.
In most housing services just add in the .htaccess on the target server folder this:
Header set Access-Control-Allow-Origin 'https://your.site.folder'
I had the same issue. In my case i fixed it by adding addition parameter of timestamp to my URL. Even this was not required by the server I was accessing.
Example yoururl.com/yourdocument?timestamp=1234567
Note: I used epos timestamp
"Get" request with appending headers transform to "Options" request. So Cors policy problems occur. You have to implement "Options" request to your server. Cors Policy about server side and you need to allow Cors Policy on your server side. For Nodejs server:details
app.use(cors)
For Java to integrate with Angular:details
#CrossOrigin(origins = "http://localhost:4200")
You should enable CORS to get it working.
So my current state is I have a REST API web server (ASP.Net Web API), a website in plain Html which communicates with the server via ajax / angular post and get, also I have a mobile application which communicates via ajax / angular post and get.
I use Basic Auth header to secure the request, the web server will decrypt the content of the auth header and do the verification after.
What kind of attacks would the system be vulnerable to? Also what kind of security should I implement.
I read about the CSRF attacks and I think my system have no protection against it, but I have no idea how to implement it on REST API.
Also what about the cookie stealing attacks. Because my system uses persist cookies to store the auth token, how to deal with this kind of attack?
To prevent CSRF attacks, both your backend (ASP.NET Web API) and frontend (Angular) must be configured to prevent such an attack.
Taken from https://angular.io/guide/security#xsrf:
To prevent XSRF, the application must ensure that a user request originates from the real application, not from a different site. The server and client must cooperate to thwart this attack.
In a common anti-XSRF technique, the application server [backend] sends a randomly generated authentication token in a cookie. The client code reads the cookie and adds a custom request header with the token in all subsequent requests. The server compares the received cookie value to the request header value and rejects the request if the values are missing or don't match.
This technique is effective because all browsers implement the same origin policy. Only code from the website on which cookies are set can read the cookies from that site and set custom headers on requests to that site. That means only your application can read this cookie token and set the custom header. The malicious code on evil.com can't.
With that in mind, here's another quote from Angular HttpClient Docs which explains how you can implement it.
Taken from https://angular.io/guide/http#security-xsrf-protection:
When performing HTTP requests, an interceptor reads a token from a cookie, by default XSRF-TOKEN, and sets it as an HTTP header, X-XSRF-TOKEN. Since only code that runs on your domain could read the cookie, the backend can be certain that the HTTP request came from your client application and not an attacker.
By default, an interceptor sends this header on all mutating requests (POST, etc.) to relative URLs but not on GET/HEAD requests or on requests with an absolute URL.
your server needs to set a token in a JavaScript readable session cookie called XSRF-TOKEN on either the page load or the first GET request. On subsequent requests the server can verify that the cookie matches the X-XSRF-TOKEN HTTP header, and therefore be sure that only code running on your domain could have sent the request. The token must be unique for each user and must be verifiable by the server; this prevents the client from making up its own tokens. Set the token to a digest of your site's authentication cookie with a salt for added security.
Key points to take note would be:
When the angular app is loaded, it should make an API call first to your backend to retrieve an authentication token that is saved as a cookie that with the name "XSRF-TOKEN". Probably somewhere on root component (app.component.ts) ngOnInit() sounds like a good place.
By default, the authentication token will be automatically injected in the http header on all mutating requests such as POST. (Take note of this though, it is undocumented: Angular 6 does not add X-XSRF-TOKEN header to http request). Unless you return a custom-named cookie, then you have to use Angular's HttpClientXsrfModule.
With that in mind, your ASP.NET Web API should also be validating the XSRF-TOKEN as it receives requests.
With regards to your second question, cookie hijacking is done via XSS.
XSS vulnerabilities generally occur when an application takes user input and outputs it to a page without validating, encoding or escaping it.
Angular by default sanitizes inputs for tags. However, this is provided you do things "the angular way". If you use third-party libs, such as jQuery, to manipulate the DOM instead of using Angular's renderer2 module, you might lose this protections.
Taken from: https://angular.io/guide/security#xss:
In the same way, if you interact with other libraries that manipulate the DOM, you likely won't have the same automatic sanitization as with Angular interpolations. Avoid directly interacting with the DOM and instead use Angular templates where possible.
For cases where this is unavoidable, use the built-in Angular sanitization functions. Sanitize untrusted values with the DomSanitizer.sanitize method and the appropriate SecurityContext.
To increase security, you should also sanitize any mutating requests (such as PUT or POST) in your backend.
It is difficult to provide you with code examples because your question seem to be a more theory-based question.
I hope you will take a read on those links that I have hyperlinked above. They are definitely more detailed and well-explained. I hope it will at least point you in the right direction of what to get started on.
I've built a stateless, JWT-based user authentication system on my web server, following the example of Stormpath (https://stormpath.com/blog/where-to-store-your-jwts-cookies-vs-html5-web-storage).
The setup seems pretty secure against CSRF, but I'm wondering what about the GET requests.
I was able to model a CSRF attack on GET request by including an <img> tag on a page from a different domain. The server responds to the request with a full page with 200 status. While I don't change any data on GET requests, the pages may still contain some sensitive information, for example, <img src="https://example.com/account" /> may give out user's details, and or <img src="https://example.com/logout" /> could simply do something annoying, and I think there can be more examples.
Is this <img> attack considered harmless, because the browser will not disclose the repsonse it gets? Are there any other tricks with abusing HTML tags that could lead to disclosure of sensitive information by revealing the server output to a GET request?
I'm thinking to additionally include a hash of my JWT access token to the GET URL and have the server require that GET requests include that hash, and it must match the JWT token from the cookie. In this way the attacker will not be able to guess a valid GET URL, while also leaking such GET URL will not allow the attacker to get access to my server because he doesn't know the original JWT from cookies. Apart from minor usability issues, this setup looks like a good idea to me, but I haven't googled out anything similar, so I'm suspicious :)
Concept of CSRF attack, it forces the authenticated user to perform unwanted actions on a web application to which he is authorized to.
CSRF attacks ensures to introduce the state change for stateless servers, thefting of data is not involved as GET request would fetch the response to the victim not to the attacker, as victim is authorized to. There is no means that attacker can see the response to the forged request.
A CSRF attack can bring the change to the state of the server but it can't see their results, it is forced to act blindly.
Let's say, CSRF attack can tell the victim browser to request victim bank account balance, but the attacker can't see that balance. This is obviously a pointless attack.
But it is not pointless if, the attacker ask the victim browser to perform transfer of money from victim account to the attacker's account. The success or failure page for the transfer is inaccessible to the attacking script. Attacker is not concerned about the response of success or failure, his main concern lies he want money in his account.
If you are performing GET request to change the state of the server, it may turn out to be risky for you.
"GET http://bank.com/transfer.do?acct=BOB&amount=100 HTTP/1.1", if one such is your request.
Which I believe it would not be.
So you must focus on POST request which should be monitored using CSRF token.
Sharing the link for OWASP rules https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010-A5-Cross-Site_Request_Forgery_%28CSRF%29 must go it once.
Is there a way to include additional request headers in form data, other than action and method? I am hoping to send some authentication credentials cross domain without making the user re-enter their login credentials. ie I want to build an Authentication header directly from form submission.
The domain is SSL enabled, so I considered including credentials in the URL, but as explained here this is a bad idea, as those credentials may be secure over the connection, but can be accessed through the browser by other apps potentially.
Larger Picture
I have access to the cross domain username and password through an AJAX request to the client server (home domain). I want to take those credentials and submit them through a non-AJAX request, so a user can download a document securely without the URL being publicly accessible.
To the specific question, I believe the answer is no - you can't control sending any extra headers from the form itself. There are some other things you can send with a form, but they are not useful to what you want to do: W3 Form Tag Specification
What you could do is do a form POST, which is the standard way to communicate when sessions cookies are out of the question and a query string won't do; just use a hidden field with some sort of token/hash of the credentials. Avoid clear-text of passwords like the plague, and really try to avoid reversible encryption of them too. This is just one of those areas you have to be extra careful to avoid creating an easily exploitable security vulnerability.
But generally speaking it works just fine, and anything that can do an AJAX GET should be able to do an AJAX POST.