ZAP Scanning Report

This page contains an error/warning message that may disclose sensitive information like the location of the file that produced the unhandled exception. This information can be used to launch further attacks against the web application. The alert could be a false positive if the error message is found inside a documentation page.

Review the source code of this page. Implement custom error pages. Consider implementing a mechanism to provide a unique error reference/identifier to the client (browser) while logging the details on the server side and not exposing them to the user.

This check looks at user-supplied input in query string parameters and POST data to identify where cookie parameters might be controlled. This is called a cookie poisoning attack, and becomes exploitable when an attacker can manipulate the cookie in various ways. In some cases this will not be exploitable, however, allowing URL parameters to set cookie values is generally considered a bug.

Do not allow user input to control cookie names and values. If some query string parameters must be set in cookie values, be sure to filter out semicolon's that can serve as name/value pair delimiters.

An attacker may be able to poison cookie values through URL parameters. Try injecting a semicolon to see if you can add cookie values (e.g. name=controlledValue;name=anotherValue;).

This was identified at:

https://localhost:44444/Abp/Languages/Switch?culture=es&returnUrl=%2FIdentityServer%2FClients&uiCulture=es

User-input was found in the following cookie:

.AspNetCore.Culture=c=es|uic=es; expires=Fri, 03 Mar 2023 10:19:31 GMT; path=/

The user input was:

uiCulture=es

http://websecuritytool.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Checks#user-controlled-cookie

At least one link on this page is vulnerable to Reverse tabnabbing as it uses a target attribute without using both of the "noopener" and "noreferrer" keywords in the "rel" attribute, which allows the target page to take control of this page.

Do not use a target attribute, or if you have to then also add the attribute: rel="noopener noreferrer".

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Reverse_Tabnabbing

https://dev.to/ben/the-targetblank-vulnerability-by-example

https://mathiasbynens.github.io/rel-noopener/

https://medium.com/@jitbit/target-blank-the-most-underestimated-vulnerability-ever-96e328301f4c

X-Frame-Options header is not included in the HTTP response to protect against 'ClickJacking' attacks.

Most modern Web browsers support the X-Frame-Options HTTP header. Ensure it's set on all web pages returned by your site (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. ALLOW-FROM allows specific websites to frame the web page in supported web browsers).

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/archive/2010/03/30/combating-clickjacking-with-x-frame-options.aspx

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.

No known Anti-CSRF token [anticsrf, CSRFToken, __RequestVerificationToken, csrfmiddlewaretoken, authenticity_token, OWASP_CSRFTOKEN, anoncsrf, csrf_token, _csrf, _csrfSecret] was found in the following HTML form: [Form 1: "Radio_UseDefault" "Radio_UseGravatar" "Radio_UploadFile" "Picture" ].

http://projects.webappsec.org/Cross-Site-Request-Forgery

http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/352.html

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+.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/CSP/Introducing_Content_Security_Policy

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Content_Security_Policy

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSP/

http://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/content-security-policy/csp-specification.dev.html

http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/security/content-security-policy/

http://caniuse.com/#feat=contentsecuritypolicy

http://content-security-policy.com/

A cookie has been set without the HttpOnly flag, which means that the cookie can be accessed by JavaScript. If a malicious script can be run on this page then the cookie will be accessible and can be transmitted to another site. If this is a session cookie then session hijacking may be possible.

Ensure that the HttpOnly flag is set for all cookies.

http://www.owasp.org/index.php/HttpOnly

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.

NOTE: Because of its name this cookie may be important, but dropping it appears to have no effect: [idsrv.session]

Cookies that don't have expected effects can reveal flaws in application logic. In the worst case, this can reveal where authentication via cookie token(s) is not actually enforced.

These cookies affected the response:

These cookies did NOT affect the response: idsrv.session,.AspNetCore.Antiforgery.gtNqsNw45bs,.AspNetCore.Identity.Application,XSRF-TOKEN

http://projects.webappsec.org/Fingerprinting

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.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-cookie-same-site

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.

http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Testing_for_cookies_attributes_(OWASP-SM-002)

The cache-control and pragma HTTP header have not been set properly or are missing allowing the browser and proxies to cache content.

Whenever possible ensure the cache-control HTTP header is set with no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate; and that the pragma HTTP header is set with no-cache.

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Session_Management_Cheat_Sheet#Web_Content_Caching

The response appeared to contain common error messages returned by platforms such as ASP.NET, and Web-servers such as IIS and Apache. You can configure the list of common debug messages.

Disable debugging messages before pushing to production.

HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) is a web security policy mechanism whereby a web server declares that complying user agents (such as a web browser) are to interact with it using only secure HTTPS connections (i.e. HTTP layered over TLS/SSL). HSTS is an IETF standards track protocol and is specified in RFC 6797.

Ensure that your web server, application server, load balancer, etc. is configured to enforce Strict-Transport-Security.

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/List_of_useful_HTTP_headers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security

http://caniuse.com/stricttransportsecurity

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6797

The Anti-MIME-Sniffing header X-Content-Type-Options was not set to 'nosniff'. This allows older versions of Internet Explorer and Chrome to perform MIME-sniffing on the response body, potentially causing the response body to be interpreted and displayed as a content type other than the declared content type. Current (early 2014) and legacy versions of Firefox will use the declared content type (if one is set), rather than performing MIME-sniffing.

Ensure that the application/web server sets the Content-Type header appropriately, and that it sets the X-Content-Type-Options header to 'nosniff' for all web pages.

If possible, ensure that the end user uses a standards-compliant and modern web browser that does not perform MIME-sniffing at all, or that can be directed by the web application/web server to not perform MIME-sniffing.

This issue still applies to error type pages (401, 403, 500, etc.) as those pages are often still affected by injection issues, in which case there is still concern for browsers sniffing pages away from their actual content type.

At "High" threshold this scanner will not alert on client or server error responses.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/gg622941%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/List_of_useful_HTTP_headers

The request appeared to contain sensitive information leaked in the URL. This can violate PCI and most organizational compliance policies. You can configure the list of strings for this check to add or remove values specific to your environment.

Do not pass sensitive information in URIs.

The URL contains potentially sensitive information.

The response appears to contain suspicious comments which may help an attacker. Note: Matches made within script blocks or files are against the entire content not only comments.

Remove all comments that return information that may help an attacker and fix any underlying problems they refer to.

The following comment/snippet was identified via the pattern: \bSELECT\b

var abp=abp||{};$(function(){abp.modals.claimTypeEdit=function(){var n=function(n){var s=n.getForm(),i;$("#NewClaimInputs input").keydown(function(n){if(n.keyCode==13)return $("#CreateNewClaimButton").click(),n.preventDefault(),!1});var r=function(n,t,i,r){var u="";return i&&(u='pattern="'+i+'"'),'<input type="text" class="form-control" id="'+n+"InputId_"+t+'" '+u+'name = "Claims['+r+"].Value["+t+']" aria-describedby="DeleteClaim" />'},u=function(n,t,i){return'<input type="number" class="form-control" id="'+n+"InputId_"+t+'" name="Claims['+i+"].Value["+t+']" aria-describedby="DeleteClaim" />'},f=function(n,t,i){return'<input type="date" class="form-control" id="'+n+"InputId_"+t+'" name="Claims['+i+"].Value["+t+']" aria-describedby="DeleteClaim" />'},e=function(n,t,i){return'<select id="'+n+"InputId_"+t+'" name="Claims['+i+"].Value["+t+']" class="form-control" aria-describedby="DeleteClaim"><option value="true" selected>true<\/option> <option value = "false" > false<\/option><\/select>'},o=function(n,t,i){var o=$("#Claims"+n+"Index").val(),h=$("#Claims"+o+"ValueType").val(),s="";return h==="String"?s=r(n,t,i,o):h==="Int"?s=u(n,t,o):h==="DateTime"?s=f(n,t,o):h==="Boolean"&&(s=e(n,t,o)),' <div id="'+n+"GroupId_"+t+'")" class="willBeHidden">\r\n <div class="input-group mb-3"> <div class="input-group-prepend"> <label class="input-group-text mw-100 fs-9" for="'+n+"InputId_"+t+'")">'+n+"<\/label>\r\n <\/div> "+s+'\r\n <div class="input-group-append">\r\n <button class="btn btn-danger deleteClaim" type="button" data="'+n+'" index="'+t+'">\r\n <i class="fa fa-trash"><\/i>\r\n <\/button>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>'},t=function(){$("div .newClaimValueInput").hide();var n=$("#NewClaimTypeSelect").val();$("#New"+n+"ClaimValueInput").parent().show()};$("#NewClaimTypeSelect").on("change",function(){t()});i=function(n,t){for(var r=n+"GroupId_",u=n+"InputId_",i="0",f;i<5e3;){if($("#"+r+i).length<1){$("#"+r+(i-1)).after(o(n,i,$("#Claims"+n+"Regex").val()));$("#"+u+i).val(t);return}if(f=$("#"+u+i).val(),f===undefined||f==""){$("#"+r+i).show();$("#"+u+i).val(t);return}i++}};$("#CreateNewClaimButton").click(function(){var n=$("#NewClaimTypeSelect").val(),t=$("#New"+n+"ClaimValueInput").val();t!==undefined&&t!=""&&($("#New"+n+"ClaimValueInput").val(""),i(n,t))});$(document).on("click",".deleteClaim",function(){var n=$(this).attr("data"),t=$(this).attr("index");$("#"+n+"GroupId_"+t).hide();$("#"+n+"InputId_"+t).val("")});$("div .willBeHidden").hide();t()};return{initModal:n}}});

Cookies can be scoped by domain or path. This check is only concerned with domain scope.The domain scope applied to a cookie determines which domains can access it. For example, a cookie can be scoped strictly to a subdomain e.g. www.nottrusted.com, or loosely scoped to a parent domain e.g. nottrusted.com. In the latter case, any subdomain of nottrusted.com can access the cookie. Loosely scoped cookies are common in mega-applications like google.com and live.com. Cookies set from a subdomain like app.foo.bar are transmitted only to that domain by the browser. However, cookies scoped to a parent-level domain may be transmitted to the parent, or any subdomain of the parent.

Always scope cookies to a FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name).

The origin domain used for comparison was:

localhost

.AspNetCore.Culture=c%3Dzh-Hans%7Cuic%3Dzh-Hans

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265#section-4.1

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Testing_for_cookies_attributes_(OTG-SESS-002)

http://code.google.com/p/browsersec/wiki/Part2#Same-origin_policy_for_cookies

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

Manually confirm that the timestamp data is not sensitive, and that the data cannot be aggregated to disclose exploitable patterns.

2147483647, which evaluates to: 2038-01-19 06:14:07

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2013-A6-Sensitive_Data_Exposure

http://projects.webappsec.org/w/page/13246936/Information%20Leakage

This check looks at user-supplied input in query string parameters and POST data to identify where certain HTML attribute values might be controlled. This provides hot-spot detection for XSS (cross-site scripting) that will require further review by a security analyst to determine exploitability.

Validate all input and sanitize output it before writing to any HTML attributes.

User-controlled HTML attribute values were found. Try injecting special characters to see if XSS might be possible. The page at the following URL:

https://localhost:44444/Account/Manage?CurrentPassword=ZAP&NewPassword=ZAP&NewPasswordConfirm=ZAP&returnUrl=https://localhost:44444/

appears to include user input in:

a(n) [a] tag [alt] attribute

The user input found was:

CurrentPassword=ZAP

The user-controlled value was:

zapsecurity

http://websecuritytool.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Checks#user-controlled-html-attribute