Some days ago another advisory related to a web application firewall (WAF) product was published. This time the product Airlock by Ergon was affected by a vulnerability that combines Encoding and NULL Byte attacks to circumvent the pattern based detection engine. We have described these attacks in detail in our newsletter “Web Application Firewall Security and The Swiss Army Knife for Web Application Firewalls” because they belong to a well known category of attacks against WAFs.
The product is commonly used in the swiss banking industry to ensure PCI DSS compliance and serves as another proof that WAFs can’t protect web applications from skilled attackers as already stated by me in an earlier post that you can find here. Beside these “5 myths of web application firewalls” we can also look at WAFs based on the typical attack vectors against web applications:
These attack vectors are described in detail in the famous “Web Application Hackers Handbook” and if you’re doing web application assessments they belong to the mandatory test methodology. Based on our WAF research we have compiled a little nice diagram that reflects the technical capabilities of WAFs to protect against these attack vectors:
As you can see especially authorization (user A can access data of user B) attacks and also logic flaws can not be addressed by WAFs because they can not be detected by pattern matching and even by whitelisting approaches. By the way when testing banking web applications one of the most relevant questions to answer is “can customer A see account information of customer B” :-). This raises the question “Why is the banking industry using WAFs to protect their customers data instead of fixing vulnerabilities in their applications or in general ensuring the quality?”. And again, finally we end up realizing that implementing a Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) would fulfill our “security needs” in a more effective way, but this time just from an attackers point of view.
There are some database specifics, every pentester should be aware of, when testing for and exploiting SQLi vulnerabilities. Besides the different string concatenation variants already covered above, there are some other specifics that have to be considered and might turn out useful in some circumstances. For example with Oracle Databases, every SELECT statement needs a following FROM statement even if the desired data is not stored within a database. So when trying to extract e.g. the DB username using a UNION SELECT statement, the DUAL table may be utilized, which should always be available. Another point, if dealing with MySQL, is the possibility to simplify the classic payload
' or 1=1 --
to
' or 1 --
One important difference regarding totally-blind SQLi are the different ways for an equivalent MS-SQL “waitfor delay” in other database management systems. For MySQL (before 5.0.42), the benchmark function may be used. E.g.:
benchmark(3000000,MD5(1))
For later versions:
sleep(5)
Respectively, Oracle supports an HTTP request function, which is expected to generate a delay if pointed to a non existing URL: utl_http.request('http://192.168.66.77/'). Alternatively, the following function may be useful:
DBMS_LOCK.SLEEP(5)
Using database specific test and exploit signatures will also help to identify the used database, which makes all further tests much easier.
Another important difference is the missing MS-SQL “xp_cmdshell” on other DBMSs. However, there were some talks in the past (e.g. at Black Hat Europe 2009 by Bernardo Damele A. G. the author of sqlmap) about the possibility to execute code with MySQL respectively PostgreSQL under certain circumstances (sqlmap supports upload and execution of Metasploit shellcode for MySQL and PostgreSQL). This table summarizes useful SQL functions.
How to Exploit SQL Injection
After identifying vulnerable parameters it is time for exploitation. There are some basic techniques for this task, which will be explained in the context of an Oracle DB. As for data extraction one of the most useful statements is UNION SELECT. However, the UNION SELECT approach doesn’t work in all situations. If,for example, injecting right after the select statement (e.g. “SELECT $INPUT_COLUMN_NAME FROM tablename;” ) and not after a WHERE clause, trying to extract data with UNION SELECT leads most likely to an SQL error if you are unaware of the exact query. In this simple but sometimes occurring scenario, one solution would be the use of subselects. The advantage of subselects are the fact, that in many cases it is not necessary to know anything about the surrounding query. So supplying
(SELECT user FROM DUAL)
the SQL query doesn’t get broken and ideally prints the desired information. However if the payload is injected into a string, the previously covered string concatenation gets useful. So with a similar query, the attack string could look like:
'|| (SELECT user FROM DUAL) ||'
The previous examples depend on any form of results from the application. In case the application doesn’t print any results of the SQL query, it may still be possible to gather database information if the application behavior can be influenced.Given a registration form, where the supplied username gets checked for existence in the database, the used SQL query might look like:
SELECT username FROM users WHERE username = '$NEW_USERNAME';
This kind of vulnerability is a boolean-based blind SQLi. It is not possible to print any SQL query results, but the application logic can be exploited. So the payload in this case might be:
'|| (SELECT CASE WHEN (SELECT 'abcd' FROM DUAL) = 'abcd' THEN 'new_username' else 'EXISTING_USERNAME' END FROM DUAL)||'
Or in pseudo code:
If abcd equals abcd
return new_username
else
return EXISTING_USERNAME
Obviously this payload does not provide any useful information by now, but it illustrates the possibility to make boolean checks on strings which will be helpful later on during/for extracting real data from the database.
How to get around Web Application Firewalls
In some situations, the application might filter specific attack strings or a Web Application Firewall (WAF) is deployed in front of the web servers/applications. In these cases, being creative is essential. For example, instead of injecting
' or 'a'='a
we already circumvented a WAF by supplying a slightly modified version of this payload:
' or 'a='='a=
If dealing with a MySQL database, using the previously mentioned attack string might also (and did already in practice) help to deceive some filters:
' or 1 --
It is also very likely, that one single quote doesn’t cause any reaction, as of false positive prevention. If it does, the following variation could also help to get through the WAF:
abc'def
In general, using short test strings (and some brainpower) might help to not trigger any filtering rules.
If unsure whether a WAF is in place or not, it is advisable to first verify its existence with some fingerprinting tools. One of them is wafw00f which supports many different vendors. Another tool is tsakwaf, which supports less vendors but includes additional features for WAF circumvention like encoding capabilities for test signatures, that might be useful for SQL injection testing, when a WAF is in place.
… to be continued …
Have a great day and enjoy trying 🙂
Michael, Timo and Frank from the Appsec Team
Some days ago a security advisory related to web application firewalls (WAFs) was published on Full Disclosure. Wendel Guglielmetti Henrique found another bug in the IBM Web Application Firewall which can be used to circumvent the WAF and execute typical web application attacks like SQL injection (click here for details). Wendel talked already (look here) at the Troopers Conference in 2009 about the different techniques to identify and bypass WAFs, so this kind of bypass methods are not quite new.
Nevertheless doing a lot of web application assessments and talking about countermeasures to protect web applications there’s a TOP 1 question I have to answer almost every time: “Wouldn’t it be helpful to install a WAF in front of our web application to protect them from attacks?”. My typical answer is “NO” because it’s better to spent the resources for addressing the problems in the code itself. So I will take this opportunity to write some rants about sense and nonsense of WAFs ;-). Let’s start with some – from our humble position – widespread myths:
1. WAFs will protect a web application from all web attacks .
2. WAFs are transparent and can’t be detected .
3. After installation of a WAF our web application is secure, no further “To Dos” .
4. WAFs are smart, so they can be used with any web application, no matter how complex it is .
5. Vulnerabilities in web applications can’t be fixed in time, only a WAF can help to reduce the attack surface.
And now let us dig a little bit deeper into these myths ;-).
1. WAFs will protect a web application from all web attacks
There are different attack detection models used by common WAFs like signature based detection, behavior based detection or a whitelist approach. These detection models are also known by attackers, so it’s not too hard to construct an attack that will pass the detection engines.
Just a simple example for signatures ;-): Studying sql injection attacks we can learn from all the examples that we can manipulate “WHERE clauses” with attacks like “or 1=1”. This is a typical signature for the detection engine of WAFs, but what about using “or 9=9” or even smarter 😉 “or 14<15”? This might sound ridiculous for most of you, but this already worked at least against one WAF 😉 and there are much more leet attacks to circumvent WAFs (sorry that we don’t disclose any vendor names, but this post is about WAFs in general).
Another point to mention are the different types of attacks against web applications, it’s not all about SQL injection and Cross-Site Scripting attacks, there also logic flaws that can be attacked or the typical privilege escalation problem “can user A access data of user B?”. A WAF can’t protect against these attacks, it a WAF can raise the bar for attackers under some circumstances, but it can’t protect a web application from skilled attackers.
2. WAFs are transparent and can’t be detected
In 2009, initially at Troopers ;-), Wendel and Sandro Gauci published a tool called wafw00f and described their approach to fingerprint WAFs in different talks at security conferences. This already proves that this myth is not true. Furthermore there will be another tool release from ERNW soon, so stay tuned, it will be available for download shortly ;-).
3. After installation of a WAF my web application is secure, no further “To Dos”
WAFs require a lot of operational effort just because web applications offer more and more functionality and the main purpose of a web application is to support the organization’s business. WAF administrators have to ensure that the WAF doesn’t block any legitimate traffic. It’s almost the same as with Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems, they require a lot of fine tuning to detect important attacks and ensure functionality in parallel. History proves that this didn’t (and still doesn’t) work for most IDS/IPS implementations, why should it work for WAFs ;-)?
4. WAFs are smart, so they can be used with any web application, no matter how complex it is
Today’s web applications are often quite complex, they use DOM based communication, web services with encryption and very often they create a lot of dynamic content. A WAF can’t use a whitelist approach or the behavior based detection model with these complex web applications because the content changes dynamically. This reduces the options to the signature based detection model which is not as effective as many people believe (see myth No. 1).
5. Vulnerabilities in web applications can’t be fixed in time, only a WAF can help to reduce the attack surface
This is one of the most common sales arguments, because it contains a lot of reasonable arguments, but what these sales guys don’t tell is the fact, that a WAF won’t solve your problem either ;-).
Talking about risk analysis the ERNW way we have 3 contributing factors: probability, vulnerability and impact. A WAF won’t have any influance on the impact, because if the vulnerability gets exploited there’s still the same impact. Looking at probabilities with the risk analysis view, you have to take care that you don’t consider existing controls (like WAFs 😉 ) because we’re talking about the probability that someone tries to attack your web application and I think that’s pretty clear that the installation of a WAF won’t change that ;-). So there’s only the vulnerability factor left that you can change with the implementation of controls.
But me let me ask one question using the picture of the Fukushima incident: What is the better solution to protect nuclear plants from tsunamis? 1. Building a high wall around it to protect it from the water? 2. Build the nuclear plant at a place where tsunamis can’t occur?
I think the answer is obvious and it’s the same with web application vulnerabilities, if you fix them there’s no need for a WAF. If you start using a Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) you can reach this goal with reasonable effort ;-), so it’s not a matter of costs.
Clarifying these myths of web application firewalls, I think the conclusions are clear. Spend your resources for fixing the vulnerabilities in your web applications instead of buying another appliance that needs operational effort, only slightly reducing the vulnerability instead of eliminating it and also costing more money. We have quite a lot of experience supporting our customers with a SDL and from this experience we can say, that it works effectively and can be implemented more easily than many people think.
You are still not convinced ;-)? In short we will publish an ERNW Newsletter (our newsletter archive can be found here) describing techniques to detect und circumvent WAFs and also a new tool called TSAKWAF (The Swiss Army Knife for Web Application Firewalls) which implements these techniques for practical use. Maybe this will change your mind ;-).
A few weeks ago, I released version 0.9 of a web application testing tool called tsakwaf (The Swiss Army Knife for Web Application Firewalls) together with an ERNW Newsletter about web application firewalls. tsakwaf is based on perl and supports fingerprinting of some supported WAFs and code generation methods to circumvent filter rules. Today, version 0.9.1 will be released, which adds SSL support for the WAF fingerprinting function (Big thanks to Simon Rich!) and a bug fix regarding the detection of WAF reactions which may lead to false positives. Additionally, I’m happy to announce that at least one talk at next year’s Troopers will cover attacks against WAFs (like this one from the 2009 edition) . So mark your calendar – Troopers12 will happen on 21st and 22nd March 2012, with the usual workshops before the conference and the round table sessions the day after – and enjoy playing with tsakwaf!
Some days ago a security advisory related to web application firewalls (WAFs) was published on Full Disclosure. Wendel Guglielmetti Henrique found another bug in the IBM Web Application Firewall which can be used to circumvent the WAF and execute typical web application attacks like SQL injection (click here for details). Wendel talked already (look here) at the Troopers Conference in 2009 about the different techniques to identify and bypass WAFs, so this kind of bypass methods are not quite new.
Nevertheless doing a lot of web application assessments and talking about countermeasures to protect web applications there’s a TOP 1 question I have to answer almost every time: “Wouldn’t it be helpful to install a WAF in front of our web application to protect them from attacks?”. My typical answer is “NO” because it’s better to spent the resources for addressing the problems in the code itself. So I will take this opportunity to write some rants about sense and nonsense of WAFs ;-). Let’s start with some – from our humble position – widespread myths:
1. WAFs will protect a web application from all web attacks .
2. WAFs are transparent and can’t be detected .
3. After installation of a WAF our web application is secure, no further “To Dos” .
4. WAFs are smart, so they can be used with any web application, no matter how complex it is .
5. Vulnerabilities in web applications can’t be fixed in time, only a WAF can help to reduce the attack surface.
And now let us dig a little bit deeper into these myths ;-).
1. WAFs will protect a web application from all web attacks
There are different attack detection models used by common WAFs like signature based detection, behavior based detection or a whitelist approach. These detection models are also known by attackers, so it’s not too hard to construct an attack that will pass the detection engines.
Just a simple example for signatures ;-): Studying sql injection attacks we can learn from all the examples that we can manipulate “WHERE clauses” with attacks like “or 1=1”. This is a typical signature for the detection engine of WAFs, but what about using “or 9=9” or even smarter 😉 “or 14<15”? This might sound ridiculous for most of you, but this already worked at least against one WAF 😉 and there are much more leet attacks to circumvent WAFs (sorry that we don’t disclose any vendor names, but this post is about WAFs in general).
Another point to mention are the different types of attacks against web applications, it’s not all about SQL injection and Cross-Site Scripting attacks, there also logic flaws that can be attacked or the typical privilege escalation problem “can user A access data of user B?”. A WAF can’t protect against these attacks, it a WAF can raise the bar for attackers under some circumstances, but it can’t protect a web application from skilled attackers.
2. WAFs are transparent and can’t be detected
In 2009, initially at Troopers ;-), Wendel and Sandro Gauci published a tool called wafw00f and described their approach to fingerprint WAFs in different talks at security conferences. This already proves that this myth is not true. Furthermore there will be another tool release from ERNW soon, so stay tuned, it will be available for download shortly ;-).
3. After installation of a WAF my web application is secure, no further “To Dos”
WAFs require a lot of operational effort just because web applications offer more and more functionality and the main purpose of a web application is to support the organization’s business. WAF administrators have to ensure that the WAF doesn’t block any legitimate traffic. It’s almost the same as with Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems, they require a lot of fine tuning to detect important attacks and ensure functionality in parallel. History proves that this didn’t (and still doesn’t) work for most IDS/IPS implementations, why should it work for WAFs ;-)?
4. WAFs are smart, so they can be used with any web application, no matter how complex it is
Today’s web applications are often quite complex, they use DOM based communication, web services with encryption and very often they create a lot of dynamic content. A WAF can’t use a whitelist approach or the behavior based detection model with these complex web applications because the content changes dynamically. This reduces the options to the signature based detection model which is not as effective as many people believe (see myth No. 1).
5. Vulnerabilities in web applications can’t be fixed in time, only a WAF can help to reduce the attack surface
This is one of the most common sales arguments, because it contains a lot of reasonable arguments, but what these sales guys don’t tell is the fact, that a WAF won’t solve your problem either ;-).
Talking about risk analysis the ERNW way we have 3 contributing factors: probability, vulnerability and impact. A WAF won’t have any influance on the impact, because if the vulnerability gets exploited there’s still the same impact. Looking at probabilities with the risk analysis view, you have to take care that you don’t consider existing controls (like WAFs 😉 ) because we’re talking about the probability that someone tries to attack your web application and I think that’s pretty clear that the installation of a WAF won’t change that ;-). So there’s only the vulnerability factor left that you can change with the implementation of controls.
But me let me ask one question using the picture of the Fukushima incident: What is the better solution to protect nuclear plants from tsunamis? 1. Building a high wall around it to protect it from the water? 2. Build the nuclear plant at a place where tsunamis can’t occur?
I think the answer is obvious and it’s the same with web application vulnerabilities, if you fix them there’s no need for a WAF. If you start using a Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) you can reach this goal with reasonable effort ;-), so it’s not a matter of costs.
Clarifying these myths of web application firewalls, I think the conclusions are clear. Spend your resources for fixing the vulnerabilities in your web applications instead of buying another appliance that needs operational effort, only slightly reducing the vulnerability instead of eliminating it and also costing more money. We have quite a lot of experience supporting our customers with a SDL and from this experience we can say, that it works effectively and can be implemented more easily than many people think.
You are still not convinced ;-)? In short we will publish an ERNW Newsletter (our newsletter archive can be found here) describing techniques to detect und circumvent WAFs and also a new tool called TSAKWAF (The Swiss Army Knife for Web Application Firewalls) which implements these techniques for practical use. Maybe this will change your mind ;-).
