sexta-feira, 15 de maio de 2020

CORS Misconfigurations On A Large Scale

Inspired by James Kettle's great OWASP AppSec Europe talk on CORS misconfigurations, we decided to fiddle around with CORS security issues a bit. We were curious how many websites out there are actually vulnerable because of dynamically generated or misconfigured CORS headers.

The issue: CORS misconfiguration

Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) is a technique to punch holes into the Same-Origin Policy (SOP) – on purpose. It enables web servers to explicitly allow cross-site access to a certain resource by returning an Access-Control-Allow-Origin (ACAO) header. Sometimes, the value is even dynamically generated based on user-input such as the Origin header send by the browser. If misconfigured, an unintended website can access the resource. Furthermore, if the Access-Control-Allow-Credentials (ACAC) server header is set, an attacker can potentially leak sensitive information from a logged in user – which is almost as bad as XSS on the actual website. Below is a list of CORS misconfigurations which can potentially be exploited. For more technical details on the issues read the this fine blogpost.

Misconfiguation Description
Developer backdoorInsecure developer/debug origins like JSFiddler CodePen are allowed to access the resource
Origin reflectionThe origin is simply echoed in ACAO header, any site is allowed to access the resource
Null misconfigurationAny site is allowed access by forcing the null origin via a sandboxed iframe
Pre-domain wildcardnotdomain.com is allowed access, which can simply be registered by the attacker
Post-domain wildcarddomain.com.evil.com is allowed access, can be simply be set up by the attacker
Subdomains allowedsub.domain.com allowed access, exploitable if the attacker finds XSS in any subdomain
Non-SSL sites allowedAn HTTP origin is allowed access to a HTTPS resource, allows MitM to break encryption
Invalid CORS headerWrong use of wildcard or multiple origins,not a security problem but should be fixed

The tool: CORStest

Testing for such vulnerabilities can easily be done with curl(1). To support some more options like, for example, parallelization we wrote CORStest, a simple Python based CORS misconfiguration checker. It takes a text file containing a list of domain names or URLs to check for misconfigurations as input and supports some further options:

usage: corstest.py [arguments] infile

positional arguments:
infile File with domain or URL list

optional arguments:
-h, --help show this help message and exit
-c name=value Send cookie with all requests
-p processes multiprocessing (default: 32)
-s always force ssl/tls requests
-q quiet, allow-credentials only
-v produce a more verbose output

CORStest can detect potential vulnerabilities by sending various Origin request headers and checking for the Access-Control-Allow-Origin response. An example for those of the Alexa top 750 websites which allow credentials for CORS requests is given below.

Evaluation with Alexa top 1 Million websites

To evaluate – on a larger scale – how many sites actually have wide-open CORS configurations we did run CORStest on the Alexa top 1 million sites:

$ git clone https://github.com/RUB-NDS/CORStest.git && cd cors/
$ wget -q http://s3.amazonaws.com/alexa-static/top-1m.csv.zip
$ unzip top-1m.csv.zip
$ awk -F, '{print $2}' top-1m.csv > alexa.txt
$ ./corstest.py alexa.txt

This test took about 14 hours on a decent connection and revealed the following results:

Only 29,514 websites (about 3%) actually supported CORS on their main page (aka. responded with Access-Control-Allow-Origin). Of course, many sites such as Google do only enable CORS headers for certain resources, not directly on their landing page. We could have crawled all websites (including subdomains) and fed the input to CORStest. However, this would have taken a long time and for statistics, our quick & dirty approach should still be fine. Furthermore it must be noted that the test was only performed with GET requests (without any CORS preflight) to the http:// version of websites (with redirects followed). Note that just because a website, for example, reflects the origin header it is not necessarily vulnerable. The context matters; such a configuration can be totally fine for a public sites or API endpoints intended to be accessible by everyone. It can be disastrous for payment sites or social media platforms. Furthermore, to be actually exploitable the Access-Control-Allow-Credentials: true (ACAC) header must be set. Therefore we repeated the test, this time limited to sites that return this header (see CORStest -q flag):

$ ./corstest.py -q alexa.txt

This revealed even worse results - almost half of the websites supporting ACAO and ACAC headers contained a CORS misconfigurations that could be exploited directly by a web attacker (developer backdoor, origin reflection, null misconfig, pre-/post-domain wildcard):

The Impact: SOP/SSL bypass on payment and taxpayer sites

Note that not all tested websites actually were exploitable. Some contained only public data and some others - such as Bitbucket - had CORS enabled for their main page but not for subpages containing user data. Manually testing the sites, we found to be vulnerable:
  • A dozen of online banking, bitcoin and other payment sites; one of them allowed us to create a test account so we were able to write proof-of-concept code which could actually have been used to steal money
  • Hundred of online shops/e-commerce sites and a bunch of hotel/flight booking sites
  • Various social networks and misc sites which allow users to log in and communicate
  • One US state's tax filing website (however, this one was exploitable by a MitM only)
We informed all sites we manually tested and found to be vulnerable. A simple exploit code example when logged into a website with CORS origin reflection is given below.


The Reason: Copy & Paste and broken frameworks

We were further interested in reasons for CORS misconfigurations. Particularly we wanted to learn if there is a correlation between applied technology and misconfiguration. Therefore we used WhatWeb to fingerprint the web technologies for all vulnerable sites. CORS is usually enabled either directly in the HTTP server configuration or by the web application/framework. While we could not identify a single major cause for CORS misconfigurations, we found various potential reasons. A majority of dangerous Access-Control-* headers had probably been introduced by developers, others however are based on bugs and bad practices in some products. Insights follow:
  • Various websites return invalid CORS headers; besides wrong use of wildcards such as *.domain.com, ACAO headers which contain multiple origins can often be found; Other examples of invalid - but quite creative - ACAO values we observed are: self, true, false, undefined, None, 0, (null), domain, origin, SAMEORIGIN
  • Rack::Cors, the de facto standard library to enable CORS for Ruby on Rails maps origins '' or origins '*' into reflecting arbitrary origins; this is dangerous, because developers would think that '' allows nothing and '*' behaves according to the spec: mostly harmless because it cannot be used to make to make 'credentialed' requests; this config error leads to origin reflection with ACAC headers on about a hundred of the tested and vulnerable websites
  • A majority of websites which allow a http origin to CORS access a https resource are run on IIS; this seems to be no bug in IIS itself but rather caused by bad advises found on the Internet
  • nginx is the winner when it comes serving websites with origin reflections; again, this is not an issue of nginx but of dangerous configs copied from "Stackoverflow; same problem for Phusion Passenger
  • The null ACAO value may be based on programming languages that simply return null if no value is given (we haven't found any specific framework though); another explanation is that 'CORS in Action', a popular book on CORS, contains various examples with code such as var originWhitelist = ['null', ...], which could be misinterpreted by developers as safe
  • If CORS is enabled in the crVCL PHP Framework, it adds ACAC and ACAO headers for a configured domain. Unfortunatelly, it also introduces a post-domain and pre-subdomain wildcard vulnerability: sub.domain.com.evil.com
  • All sites that are based on "Solo Build It!" (scam?) respond with: Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://sbiapps.sitesell.com
  • Some sites have :// or // as fixed ACAO values. How should browsers deal with this? Inconsistent at least! Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera allow arbitrary origins while IE and Edge deny all origins.

Related articles


Attacking Financial Malware Botnet Panels - SpyEye

This is the second blog post in the "Attacking financial malware botnet panels" series. After playing with Zeus, my attention turned to another old (and dead) botnet, SpyEye. From an ITSEC perspective, SpyEye shares a lot of vulnerabilities with Zeus. 

The following report is based on SpyEye 1.3.45, which is old, and if we are lucky, the whole SpyEye branch will be dead soon. 

Google dorks to find SpyEye C&C server panel related stuff:

  • if the img directory gets indexed, it is rather easy, search for e.g. inurl:b-ftpbackconnect.png
  • if the install directory gets indexed, again, easy, search for e.g. inurl:spylogo.png
  • also, if you find a login screen, check the css file (style.css), and you see #frm_viewlogs, #frm_stat, #frm_botsmon_country, #frm_botstat, #frm_gtaskloader and stuff like that, you can be sure you found it
  • otherwise, it is the best not to Google for it, but get a SpyEye sample and analyze it
And this is how the control panel login looks like, nothing sophisticated:


The best part is that you don't have to guess the admin's username ;)

This is how an average control panel looks like:


Hack the Planet! :)

Boring vulns found (warning, an almost exact copy from the Zeus blog post)


  • Clear text HTTP login - you can sniff the login password via MiTM, or steal the session cookies
  • No password policy - admins can set up really weak passwords
  • No anti brute-force - you can try to guess the admin's password. There is no default username, as there is no username handling!
  • Password autocomplete enabled - boring
  • Missing HttpOnly flag on session cookie - interesting when combining with XSS
  • No CSRF protection - e.g. you can upload new exe, bin files, turn plugins on/off :-( boring. Also the file extension check can be bypassed, but the files are stored in the database, so no PHP shell this time. If you check the following code, you can see that even the file extension and type is checked, and an error is shown, but the upload process continues. And even if the error would stop the upload process, the check can be fooled by setting an invalid $uptype. Well done ...
        if ($_FILES['file']['tmp_name'] && ($_FILES['file']['size'] > 0))
        {
                $outstr = "<br>";
                set_time_limit(0);
                $filename = str_replace(" ","_",$_FILES['file']['name']);
                $ext = substr($filename, strrpos($filename, '.')+1);
                if( $ext==='bin' && $uptype!=='config' ) $outstr .= "<font class='error'>Bad CONFIG extension!</font><br>";
                if( $ext==='exe' && $uptype!=='body' && $uptype!=='exe' ) $outstr .= "<font class='error'>Bad extension!</font><br>";

                switch( $uptype )
                {
                case 'body': $ext = 'b'; break;
                case 'config': $ext = 'c'; break;
                case 'exe': $ext = 'e'; break;
                default: $ext = 'e';
                }
                $_SESSION['file_ext'] = $ext;
                if( isset($_POST['bots']) && trim($_POST['bots']) !== '')
              {
                        $bots = explode(' ', trim($_POST['bots']));
                        //writelog("debug.log", trim($_POST['bots']));
                      $filename .= "_".(LastFileId()+1);
                }
                if( FileExist($filename) ) $filename .= LastFileId();
                $tmpName  = $_FILES['file']['tmp_name'];
                $fileSize = $_FILES['file']['size'];
                $fileType = $_FILES['file']['type'];
                ## reading all file for calculating hash
                $fp = fopen($tmpName, 'r');
  • Clear text password storage - the MySQL passwords are stored in php files, in clear text. Also, the login password to the form panel is stored in clear text.
  • MD5 password - the passwords stored in MySQL are MD5 passwords. No PBKDF2, bcrypt, scrypt, salt, whatever. MD5. Just look at the pure simplicity of the login check, great work!
$query = "SELECT * FROM users_t WHERE uPswd='".md5($pswd)."'";
  • ClickJacking - really boring stuff

    SQL injection


    SpyEye has a fancy history of SQL injections. See details here, here, here, video here and video here.

    It is important to highlight the fact that most of the vulnerable functions are reachable without any authentication, because these PHP files lack user authentication at the beginning of the files.

    But if a C&C server owner gets pwned through this vuln, it is not a good idea to complain to the developer, because after careful reading of the install guide, one can see:

    "For searching info in the collector database there is a PHP interface as formgrabber admin panel. The admin panel is not intended to be found on the server. This is a client application."

    And there are plenty of reasons not to install the formgrabber admin panel on any internet reachable server. But this fact leads to another possible vulnerability. The user for this control panel is allowed to remotely login to the MySQL database, and the install guide has pretty good passwords to be reused. I mean it looks pretty secure, there is no reason not to use that.

    CREATE USER 'frmcpviewer' IDENTIFIED BY 'SgFGSADGFJSDGKFy2763272qffffHDSJ';

    Next time you find a SpyEye panel, and you can connect to the MySQL database, it is worth a shot to try this password.

    Unfortunately the default permissions for this user is not enough to write files (select into outfile):

    Access denied for user 'frmcpviewer' (using password: YES)

    I also made a little experiment with this SQL injection vulnerability. I did set up a live SpyEye botnet panel, created the malware install binaries (droppers), and sent the droppers to the AV companies. And after more and more sandboxes connected to my box, someone started to exploit the SQL injection vulnerability on my server!

    63.217.168.90 - - [16/Jun/2014:04:43:00 -0500] "GET /form/frm_boa-grabber_sub.php?bot_guid=&lm=3&dt=%20where%201=2%20union%20select%20@a:=1%20from%20rep1%20where%20@a%20is%20null%20union%20select%20@a:=%20@a%20%2b1%20union%20select%20concat(id,char(1,3,3,7),bot_guid,char(1,3,3,7),process_name,char(1,3,3,7),hooked_func,char(1,3,3,7),url,char(1,3,3,7),func_data)%20from%20rep2_20140610%20where%20@a=3%23 HTTP/1.1" 200 508 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E)"

    Although the query did not return any meaningful data to the attacker (only data collected from sandboxes), it raises some legal questions.

    Which company/organization has the right to attack my server? 
    • police (having a warrant)
    • military (if we are at war)
    • spy agencies (always/never, choose your favorite answer)
    • CERT organisations?

    But, does an AV company or security research company has the legal right to attack my server? I don't think so... The most problematic part is when they hack a server (without authorization), and sell the stolen information in the name of "intelligence service". What is it, the wild wild west?

    The SQLi clearly targets the content of the stolen login credentials. If this is not an AV company, but an attacker, how did they got the SpyEye dropper? If this is an AV company, why are they stealing the stolen credentials? Will they notify the internet banking owners about the stolen credentials for free? Or will they do this for money?

    And don't get me wrong, I don't want to protect the criminals, but this is clearly a grey area in the law. From an ethical point of view, I agree with hacking the criminal's servers. As you can see, the whole post is about disclosing vulns in these botnet panels. But from a legal point of view, this is something tricky ... I'm really interested in the opinion of others, so comments are warmly welcome.

    On a side note, I was interested how did the "attackers" found the SpyEye form directory? Easy, they brute-forced it, with a wordlist having ~43.000 entries.

    (Useless) Cross site scripting


    Although parts of the SpyEye panel are vulnerable to XSS, it is unlikely that you will to find these components on the server, as these codes are part of the install process, and the installer fails to run if a valid install is found. And in this case, you also need the DB password to trigger the vuln...



    Session handling


    This is a fun part. The logout button invalidates the session only on the server side, but not on the client side. But if you take into consideration that the login process never regenerates the session cookies (a.k.a session fixation), you can see that no matter how many times the admin logs into the application, the session cookie remains the same (until the admin does not close the browser). So if you find a session cookie which was valid in the past, but is not working at the moment, it is possible that this cookie will be valid in the future ...

    Binary server


    Some parts of the SpyEye server involve running a binary server component on the server, to collect the form data. It would be interesting to fuzz this component (called sec) for vulns.

    Log files revealed


    If the form panel mentioned in the SQLi part is installed on the server, it is worth visiting the <form_dir>/logs/error.log file, you might see the path of the webroot folder, IP addresses of the admins, etc.

    Reading the code


    Sometimes reading the code you can find code snippets, which is hard to understand with a clear mind:

    $content = fread($fp, filesize($tmpName));
    if ( $uptype === 'config' )
        $md5 = GetCRC32($content);
    else $md5 = md5($content);
    ....
    <script>
    if (navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Mozilla/4.0") != -1) {
    alert("Your browser is not support yet. Please, use another (FireFox, Opera, Safari)");
    document.getElementById("div_main").innerHTML = "<font class=\'error\'>ChAnGE YOuR BRoWsEr! Dont use BUGGED Microsoft products!</font>";
    }
    </script>

    Decrypting SpyEye communication

    It turned out that the communication between the malware and C&C server is not very sophisticated (Zeus does a better job at it, because the RC4 key stream is generated from the botnet password).

    function DeCode($content)
    {
    $res = '';
    for($i = 0; $i < strlen($content); $i++)
    {
    $num = ord($content[$i]);
    if( $num != 219) $res .= chr($num^219);
    }
    return $res;
    }
    Fixed XOR key, again, well done ...
    This means that it is easy to create a script, which can communicate with the SpyEye server. For example this can be used to fill in the SpyEye database with crap data.


    import binascii
    import requests
    import httplib, urllib

    def xor_str(a, b):
    i = 0
    xorred = ''
    for i in range(len(a)):
    xorred += chr(ord(a[i])^b)
    return xorred

    b64_data= "vK6yv+bt9er17O3r6vqPnoiPjZb2i5j6muvo6+rjmJ/9rb6p5urr6O/j/bK+5uP16/Xs7evq9ers7urv/bSo5u316vXs7evq/a6v5pq/trK1/bi4qbjm453j6uPv7Or9tr/u5um+uuvpve3p7eq/4+vsveLi7Lnqvrjr6ujs7rjt7rns/au3vOa5sre3srW8s7q2tr6p4Lm3tLiw4LmuvKm+q7Spr+C4uPu8qbq5ub6p4Li4vKm6ubm+qeC4qb6/sq+8qbq54LiuqK+0tri0tbW+uK+0qeC/v7So4L+1qLqrsuC+trqyt7ypurm5vqngvb24vqmvvKm6ubm+qeC9/aivuq/mtLW3srW+"
    payload =xor_str (binascii.a2b_base64(b64_data), 219)
    print ("the decrypted payload is: " + payload)
    params = (binascii.b2a_base64(xor_str(payload,219)))
    payload = {'data': params}
    r = requests.post("http://spyeye.localhost/spyeye/_cg/gate.php", data=payload)

    Morale of the story?


    Criminals produce the same shitty code as the rest of the world, and thanks to this, some of the malware operators get caught and are behind bars now. And the law is behind the reality, as always.

    More info