CAPEC-199 Metadata
Likelihood of Attack
High
Typical Severity
High
Overview
Summary
An adversary uses alternate forms of keywords or commands that result in the same action as the primary form but which may not be caught by filters. For example, many keywords are processed in a case insensitive manner. If the site's web filtering algorithm does not convert all tags into a consistent case before the comparison with forbidden keywords it is possible to bypass filters (e.g., incomplete black lists) by using an alternate case structure. For example, the "script" tag using the alternate forms of "Script" or "ScRiPt" may bypass filters where "script" is the only form tested. Other variants using different syntax representations are also possible as well as using pollution meta-characters or entities that are eventually ignored by the rendering engine. The attack can result in the execution of otherwise prohibited functionality.
Prerequisites
Target client software must allow scripting such as JavaScript.
Execution Flow
Step | Phase | Description | Techniques |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Explore | [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser or an automated tool, an adversary follows all public links and actions on a web site. They record all the links, the forms, the resources accessed and all other potential entry-points for the web application. |
|
2 | Experiment | [Probe identified potential entry points for XSS vulnerability] Possibly using an automated tool, an adversary requests variations on the inputs they surveyed before using alternate syntax. These inputs are designed to bypass incomplete filtering (e.g., incomplete HTML encoding etc.) and try many variations of characters injection that would enable the XSS payload. They record all the responses from the server that include unmodified versions of their script. |
|
3 | Experiment | [Craft malicious XSS URL] Once the adversary has determined which parameters are vulnerable to XSS, they will craft a malicious URL containing the XSS exploit. The adversary can have many goals, from stealing session IDs, cookies, credentials, and page content from the victim. |
|
4 | Exploit | [Get victim to click URL] In order for the attack to be successful, the victim needs to access the malicious URL. |
|
Potential Solutions / Mitigations
Design: Use browser technologies that do not allow client side scripting. Design: Utilize strict type, character, and encoding enforcement Implementation: Ensure all content that is delivered to client is sanitized against an acceptable content specification. Implementation: Ensure all content coming from the client is using the same encoding; if not, the server-side application must canonicalize the data before applying any filtering. Implementation: Perform input validation for all remote content, including remote and user-generated content Implementation: Perform output validation for all remote content. Implementation: Disable scripting languages such as JavaScript in browser Implementation: Patching software. There are many attack vectors for XSS on the client side and the server side. Many vulnerabilities are fixed in service packs for browser, web servers, and plug in technologies, staying current on patch release that deal with XSS countermeasures mitigates this.
Related Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE ID | Description |
---|---|
CWE-87 | Improper Neutralization of Alternate XSS Syntax |
Related CAPECs
CAPEC ID | Description |
---|---|
CAPEC-588 | This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is inserted into the client-side HTML being parsed by a web browser. Content served by a vulnerable web application includes script code used to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM). This script code either does not properly validate input, or does not perform proper output encoding, thus creating an opportunity for an adversary to inject a malicious script launch a XSS attack. A key distinction between other XSS attacks and DOM-based attacks is that in other XSS attacks, the malicious script runs when the vulnerable web page is initially loaded, while a DOM-based attack executes sometime after the page loads. Another distinction of DOM-based attacks is that in some cases, the malicious script is never sent to the vulnerable web server at all. An attack like this is guaranteed to bypass any server-side filtering attempts to protect users. |
CAPEC-591 | This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is "reflected" off a vulnerable web application and then executed by a victim's browser. The process starts with an adversary delivering a malicious script to a victim and convincing the victim to send the script to the vulnerable web application. |
CAPEC-592 | An adversary utilizes a form of Cross-site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is persistently "stored" within the data storage of a vulnerable web application as valid input. |
Stay Ahead of Attack Patterns
Understanding CAPEC patterns helps security professionals anticipate and thwart potential attacks. Leverage these insights to enhance threat modeling, strengthen your software development lifecycle, and train your security teams effectively.