Compare commits

...

7 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
hashicorp-vault-sonar-prod[bot]
efc8e97d40
update coverage information (#4859)
Co-authored-by: SonarTech <sonartech@sonarsource.com>
2025-03-29 02:48:10 +00:00
Egon Okerman
ae0dfb3126
Update rule S7409: Clarify rule title and rule text (SONARKT-637) (#4826)
* Update rule title and text according to previous discussion

* Fix typo

* Add references to S6362 and S7409 in both rules' descriptions
2025-03-28 12:55:14 +00:00
github-actions[bot]
cc01781c31
Create rule S6096: add Kotlin (SONARSEC-6157) (#4846)
* Add kotlin to rule S6096

* Add Kotlin rule description, update Java SE name

* Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: Pierre-Loup <49131563+pierre-loup-tristant-sonarsource@users.noreply.github.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: christophe-zurn-sonarsource <christophe-zurn-sonarsource@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Christophe Zurn <christophe.zurn@sonarsource.com>
Co-authored-by: Christophe Zürn <36889251+christophe-zurn-sonarsource@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Pierre-Loup <49131563+pierre-loup-tristant-sonarsource@users.noreply.github.com>
2025-03-28 10:48:21 +00:00
hashicorp-vault-sonar-prod[bot]
5acd6984d0
update coverage information (#4856)
Co-authored-by: SonarTech <sonartech@sonarsource.com>
2025-03-28 02:49:31 +00:00
github-actions[bot]
4e3c0d465a
Create rule S2083: add Kotlin (SONARSEC-6155) (#4838)
* Add kotlin to rule S2083

* Add Kotlin rule description, update Java SE name, minor java fix

* Apply review comments

---------

Co-authored-by: christophe-zurn-sonarsource <christophe-zurn-sonarsource@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Christophe Zurn <christophe.zurn@sonarsource.com>
2025-03-27 10:23:23 +00:00
Rudy Regazzoni
266cde4510
SONARGO-118 Update S2068 exception category (#4823) 2025-03-27 09:26:11 +00:00
hashicorp-vault-sonar-prod[bot]
538d0b0b4f
update coverage information (#4849)
Co-authored-by: SonarTech <sonartech@sonarsource.com>
2025-03-27 02:49:10 +00:00
16 changed files with 339 additions and 18 deletions

View File

@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
* Java JWT
* Java SE
* Java JDBC API
* Java I/O API
* Jdom2
* JSP
* Legacy Mongo Java API

View File

@ -5191,6 +5191,7 @@
"S1940": "sonar-kotlin 2.0.0.29",
"S2053": "sonar-kotlin 2.3.0.609",
"S2068": "sonar-kotlin 2.0.0.29",
"S2083": "sonar-security master",
"S2097": "sonar-kotlin 2.12.0.1956",
"S2114": "sonar-kotlin 2.12.0.1956",
"S2116": "sonar-kotlin 2.12.0.1956",
@ -5222,6 +5223,7 @@
"S5322": "sonar-kotlin 2.3.0.609",
"S5324": "sonar-kotlin 2.2.0.499",
"S5332": "sonar-kotlin 2.0.0.29",
"S5344": "sonar-kotlin master",
"S5527": "sonar-kotlin 2.0.0.29",
"S5542": "sonar-kotlin 2.0.0.29",
"S5547": "sonar-kotlin 2.0.0.29",
@ -5235,6 +5237,7 @@
"S5867": "sonar-kotlin 2.6.0.862",
"S5868": "sonar-kotlin 2.6.0.862",
"S5869": "sonar-kotlin 2.6.0.862",
"S6096": "sonar-security master",
"S6202": "sonar-kotlin 2.4.0.703",
"S6207": "sonar-kotlin 2.15.0.2579",
"S6218": "sonar-kotlin 2.4.0.703",
@ -5257,6 +5260,7 @@
"S6318": "sonar-kotlin 2.1.0.344",
"S6362": "sonar-kotlin 2.5.0.754",
"S6363": "sonar-kotlin 2.5.0.754",
"S6384": "sonar-security master",
"S6432": "sonar-kotlin 2.11.0.1828",
"S6474": "sonar-kotlin master",
"S6508": "sonar-kotlin 2.14.0.2352",
@ -5292,6 +5296,7 @@
"S7409": "sonar-kotlin master",
"S7410": "sonar-kotlin master",
"S7416": "sonar-kotlin master",
"S7435": "sonar-kotlin master",
"S899": "sonar-kotlin 2.12.0.1956"
},
"KUBERNETES": {

View File

@ -4,6 +4,10 @@ include::../ask-yourself.adoc[]
include::../recommended.adoc[]
=== Exceptions
* The rule ignores string literals that are used directly in Regexp methods.
== Sensitive Code Example
----

View File

@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
== How to fix it in Java SE
== How to fix it in Java I/O API
=== Code examples
@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ that the string `targetDirectory` does not end with a path separator:
static private String targetDirectory = "/Users/John";
@GetMapping(value = "/endpoint")
public void endpoint(@RequestParam("folder") fileName) throws IOException {
public void endpoint(@RequestParam("folder") File fileName) throws IOException {
String canonicalizedFileName = fileName.getCanonicalPath();

View File

@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ include::../impact.adoc[]
// How to fix it section
include::how-to-fix-it/java-se.adoc[]
include::how-to-fix-it/java-io-api.adoc[]
== Resources

View File

@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
== How to fix it in Java I/O API
=== Code examples
:code_impact: delete
include::../../common/fix/code-rationale.adoc[]
==== Noncompliant code example
[source,kotlin,diff-id=1,diff-type=noncompliant]
----
@Controller
class ExampleController {
companion object {
private const val TARGET_DIRECTORY = "/path/to/target/directory/"
}
@GetMapping("/delete")
fun delete(@RequestParam("filename") filename: String) {
val file = File(TARGET_DIRECTORY + filename)
file.delete()
}
}
----
==== Compliant solution
[source,kotlin,diff-id=1,diff-type=compliant]
----
@Controller
class ExampleController {
companion object {
private const val TARGET_DIRECTORY = "/path/to/target/directory/"
private val TARGET_PATH = File(TARGET_DIRECTORY).toPath().normalize()
}
@GetMapping("/delete")
fun delete(@RequestParam("filename") filename: String) {
val file = File(TARGET_PATH.toString() + filename)
if (!file.toPath().normalize().startsWith(TARGET_PATH)) {
throw IOException("Entry is outside of the target directory")
}
file.delete()
}
}
----
=== How does this work?
:canonicalization_function: java.io.File.getCanonicalPath
include::../../common/fix/self-validation.adoc[]
=== Pitfalls
include::../../common/pitfalls/partial-path-traversal.adoc[]
For example, the following code is vulnerable to partial path injection. Note
that the string `targetDirectory` does not end with a path separator:
[source, kotlin]
----
companion object {
private val targetDirectory: String = "/Users/John"
}
@GetMapping("/endpoint")
fun endpoint(@RequestParam("folder") file: File) {
val canonicalizedFileName = file.getCanonicalPath()
if (!canonicalizedFileName .startsWith(targetDirectory)) {
throw IOException("Entry is outside of the target directory");
}
file.delete()
}
----
This check can be bypassed because `"/Users/Johnny".startsWith("/Users/John")`
returns `true`. Thus, for validation, `"/Users/John"` should actually be
`"/Users/John/"`.
**Warning**: Some functions, such as `.getCanonicalPath`, remove the
terminating path separator in their return value. +
The validation code should be tested to ensure that it cannot be impacted by this
issue.
https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-java/security/advisories/GHSA-c28r-hw5m-5gv3[Here is a real-life example of this vulnerability.]
:joining_docs: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/nio/file/Path.html
:joining_func: java.nio.file.Path.resolve
include::../../common/pitfalls/oob-specific-path-joining.adoc[]

View File

@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
{
"securityStandards": {
"CWE": [
20,
22
],
"OWASP": [
"A5",
"A1"
],
"OWASP Top 10 2021": [
"A1",
"A3"
],
"OWASP Mobile Top 10 2024": [
"M4"
],
"PCI DSS 3.2": [
"6.5.8"
],
"PCI DSS 4.0": [
"6.2.4"
],
"ASVS 4.0": [
"12.3.1",
"5.1.3",
"5.1.4"
],
"STIG ASD_V5R3": [
"V-222609"
]
}
}

View File

@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
== Why is this an issue?
include::../rationale.adoc[]
include::../impact.adoc[]
// How to fix it section
include::how-to-fix-it/java-io-api.adoc[]
== Resources
include::../common/resources/standards-mobile.adoc[]
ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)
include::../message.adoc[]
'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)
include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]

View File

@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
== How to fix it in Java SE
== How to fix it in Java I/O API
=== Code examples

View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ include::../rationale.adoc[]
include::../impact.adoc[]
include::how-to-fix-it/java-se.adoc[]
include::how-to-fix-it/java-io-api.adoc[]
== Resources

View File

@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
== How to fix it in Java I/O API
=== Code examples
:canonicalization_function1: java.io.File.getCanonicalFile
:canonicalization_function2: java.io.File.getCanonicalPath
include::../../common/fix/code-rationale.adoc[]
==== Noncompliant code example
[source,kotlin,diff-id=1,diff-type=noncompliant]
----
class Example {
companion object {
private const val TARGET_DIRECTORY = "/example/directory/"
}
fun extractEntry(zipFile: ZipFile) {
val entries = zipFile.entries()
val entry = entries.nextElement()
val inputStream = zipFile.getInputStream(entry)
val file = File(TARGET_DIRECTORY + entry.name)
inputStream.copyTo(file.outputStream())
}
}
----
==== Compliant solution
[source,kotlin,diff-id=1,diff-type=compliant]
----
class Example {
companion object {
private const val TARGET_DIRECTORY = "/example/directory/"
}
fun extractEntry(zipFile: ZipFile) {
val entries = zipFile.entries()
val entry = entries.nextElement()
val inputStream = zipFile.getInputStream(entry)
val file = File(TARGET_DIRECTORY + entry.name)
val canonicalDestinationPath = file.canonicalPath
if (canonicalDestinationPath.startsWith(TARGET_DIRECTORY)) {
inputStream.copyTo(file.outputStream())
}
}
}
----
=== How does this work?
include::../../common/fix/how-does-this-work.adoc[]
=== Pitfalls
include::../../common/pitfalls/partial-path-traversal.adoc[]
For example, the following code is vulnerable to partial path injection. Note
that the string `targetDirectory` does not end with a path separator:
[source, kotlin]
----
companion object {
private const val targetDirectory = "/Users/John"
}
fun ExtractEntry(zipFile: ZipFile) {
val entries = zipFile.entries()
val entry = entries.nextElement()
val inputStream = zipFile.getInputStream(entry)
val file = File(entry.name)
val canonicalDestinationPath = file.canonicalPath
if (canonicalDestinationPath.startsWith(targetDirectory)) {
Files.copy(inputStream, file.toPath(), StandardCopyOption.REPLACE_EXISTING, LinkOption.NOFOLLOW_LINKS)
}
}
----
This check can be bypassed because `"/Users/Johnny".startsWith("/Users/John")`
returns `true`. Thus, for validation, `"/Users/John"` should actually be
`"/Users/John/"`.
**Warning**: Some functions, such as `.getCanonicalPath`, remove the
terminating path separator in their return value. +
The validation code should be tested to ensure that it cannot be impacted by this
issue.
https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-java/security/advisories/GHSA-c28r-hw5m-5gv3[Here is a real-life example of this vulnerability.]

View File

@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
{
"securityStandards": {
"CWE": [
20,
22
],
"OWASP": [
"A5",
"A1"
],
"OWASP Top 10 2021": [
"A1",
"A3"
],
"OWASP Mobile Top 10 2024": [
"M4"
],
"PCI DSS 3.2": [
"6.5.1",
"6.5.8"
],
"PCI DSS 4.0": [
"6.2.4"
],
"ASVS 4.0": [
"12.3.4",
"5.1.3",
"5.1.4"
],
"STIG ASD_V5R3": [
"V-222609"
]
}
}

View File

@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
== Why is this an issue?
include::../rationale.adoc[]
include::../impact.adoc[]
include::how-to-fix-it/java-io-api.adoc[]
== Resources
include::../common/resources/articles.adoc[]
include::../common/resources/standards-mobile.adoc[]
ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)
include::../message.adoc[]
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]

View File

@ -5,3 +5,6 @@
* OWASP - https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/2017/A7_2017-Cross-Site_Scripting_(XSS)[Top 10 2017 Category A7 - Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)]
* OWASP - https://owasp.org/www-project-mobile-top-10/2023-risks/m8-security-misconfiguration[Mobile Top 10 2024 Category M8 - Security Misconfiguration]
* CWE - https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79[CWE-79 - Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')]
=== Related rules
* S7409 - Exposing Java objects through JavaScript interfaces is security-sensitive

View File

@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
{
"title": "Exposing Java interfaces in WebViews is security-sensitive",
"title": "Exposing Java objects through JavaScript interfaces is security-sensitive",
"type": "SECURITY_HOTSPOT",
"status": "ready",
"remediation": {

View File

@ -1,15 +1,15 @@
Using Javascript interfaces in WebViews is unsafe as it allows JavaScript to invoke Java methods,
potentially giving attackers access to data or sensitive app functionality. WebViews might include
untrusted sources such as third-party iframes, making this functionality particularly risky. As
Javascript interfaces are passed to every frame in the WebView, those iframes are also able to
access the exposed Java methods.
Using JavaScript interfaces in WebViews to expose Java objects is unsafe. Doing so allows JavaScript
to invoke Java methods, potentially giving attackers access to data or sensitive app functionality.
WebViews might include untrusted sources such as third-party iframes, making this functionality
particularly risky. As JavaScript interfaces are passed to every frame in the WebView, those iframes
are also able to access the exposed Java object.
== Ask Yourself Whether
* The content in the WebView is fully trusted and secure.
* Potentially untrusted iframes could be loaded in the WebView.
* The Javascript interface has to be exposed for the entire lifecycle of the WebView.
* The exposed Java methods will accept input from potentially untrusted sources.
* The JavaScript interface has to be exposed for the entire lifecycle of the WebView.
* The exposed Java object might be called by untrusted sources.
There is a risk if you answered yes to any of these questions.
@ -18,9 +18,9 @@ There is a risk if you answered yes to any of these questions.
=== Disable JavaScript
If it is possible to disable JavaScript in the WebView, this is the most secure option. By default,
JavaScript is disabled in a WebView, so you do not need to explicitly call
``webSettings.setJavaScriptEnabled(true)`` in your ``WebSettings`` configuration. Of course, sometimes
it is necessary to enable JavaScript, in which case the following recommendations should be considered.
JavaScript is disabled in a WebView, so ``webSettings.setJavaScriptEnabled(false)`` does not need to
be explicitly called. Of course, sometimes it is necessary to enable JavaScript, in which case the
following recommendations should be considered.
=== Remove JavaScript interface when loading untrusted content
@ -63,7 +63,8 @@ class ExampleActivity : AppCompatActivity() {
== Compliant Solution
The most secure option is to disable JavaScript entirely.
The most secure option is to disable JavaScript entirely. S6362 further explains why it should not be enabled
unless absolutely necessary.
[source,kotlin]
----
@ -96,7 +97,8 @@ class ExampleActivity : AppCompatActivity() {
}
----
If a JavaScript bridge must be used, consider using ``WebViewCompat.addWebMessageListener`` instead. This allows you to restrict the origins that can send messages to the JavaScript bridge.
If a JavaScript bridge must be used, consider using ``WebViewCompat.addWebMessageListener`` instead. This allows you to restrict
the origins that can send messages to the JavaScript bridge.
[source,kotlin]
----
@ -135,3 +137,6 @@ class ExampleActivity : AppCompatActivity() {
* OWASP - https://owasp.org/www-project-mobile-top-10/2023-risks/m4-insufficient-input-output-validation.html[Mobile Top 10 2024 Category M4 - Insufficient Input/Output Validation]
* OWASP - https://owasp.org/www-project-mobile-top-10/2023-risks/m8-security-misconfiguration.html[Mobile Top 10 2024 Category M8 - Security Misconfiguration]
* CWE - https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79[CWE-79 - Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation]
=== Related rules
* S6362 - Enabling JavaScript support for WebViews is security-sensitive