Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
191 lines (139 loc) · 17 KB

vulnerabilities-workflow-1.md

File metadata and controls

191 lines (139 loc) · 17 KB

Okay, I understand. You've provided two lists of vulnerabilities, and the "empty list" was a misunderstanding. Let's combine the first two lists, as there are no duplicates, and format them into a single markdown list as requested.

Vulnerability List for django-auditlog

This document outlines potential vulnerabilities identified in the django-auditlog library. Each vulnerability is detailed below with a description, impact assessment, ranking, mitigation status, preconditions, source code analysis, and a security test case.

1. Log Injection leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE) via Log Analysis Tool

Vulnerability Name: Log Injection leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE)

Description:

  1. An external attacker interacts with the publicly available application in a way that triggers an audit log entry. This could be through any action that is configured to be logged by django-auditlog, such as accessing specific URLs, submitting forms, or triggering model changes (if applicable and exposed externally).
  2. The attacker crafts their input (e.g., request headers, form data, URL parameters) to include a payload that, when logged and processed by a log analysis tool, will be interpreted as a command and executed on the server running the log analysis tool.
  3. The django-auditlog library logs this attacker-controlled input without sufficient sanitization or escaping.
  4. The log analysis tool, when processing this log entry, interprets the injected payload as a command due to insufficient input validation on its end, and executes it. This results in arbitrary code execution on the server where the log analysis tool is running.

Impact: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can lead to Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the server hosting the log analysis tool. Depending on the setup, this could allow the attacker to:

  • Gain complete control over the log analysis server.
  • Pivot to other systems within the network.
  • Access sensitive data stored or processed by the log analysis tool or accessible from the compromised server.
  • Disrupt logging services and potentially other services if the log analysis server is critical infrastructure.

Vulnerability Rank: High

Currently Implemented Mitigations: Based on the description of the project and without access to specific code demonstrating mitigations for log injection in the provided context, it is assumed that there are no specific mitigations implemented in django-auditlog to prevent log injection attacks that could lead to RCE via vulnerable log analysis tools. Standard logging practices in django-auditlog likely focus on data integrity and auditability, not necessarily on preventing malicious payloads that exploit vulnerabilities in downstream log processing systems.

Missing Mitigations: To mitigate this vulnerability, the following mitigations are missing in django-auditlog (or need to be explicitly considered and documented for users):

  • Input Sanitization/Escaping for Logging: django-auditlog should sanitize or escape user-controlled input before including it in log messages. This should be done in a way that prevents interpretation of log entries as commands by common log analysis tools. Context-aware escaping, considering the expected format of log entries and potential vulnerabilities of log analysis tools, would be necessary.
  • Documentation and User Guidance: Documentation should explicitly warn users about the risks of log injection and the importance of using secure log analysis tools. It should also provide guidance on how to configure django-auditlog (if possible) or the application using it to minimize the risk of log injection attacks. This could include suggesting limitations on what data is logged or transformations of logged data.

Preconditions:

  • Publicly Accessible Application using django-auditlog: The application using django-auditlog must be publicly accessible so that an external attacker can interact with it.
  • Vulnerable Log Analysis Tool: Administrators must be using a log analysis tool that is vulnerable to code execution via log injection. This is a critical precondition, as the vulnerability relies on a weakness in a separate system.
  • Logging of User-Controlled Input: django-auditlog must be configured to log user-controlled input that is passed through HTTP requests (e.g., headers, parameters, form data).
  • Insufficient Sanitization in django-auditlog: django-auditlog must not be adequately sanitizing or escaping user-controlled input before logging it.

Source Code Analysis: (Since project files were not provided, this is a hypothetical analysis based on typical patterns in Django audit logging libraries and potential vulnerable areas. If actual code is provided, this section needs to be updated based on the real code.)

Let's assume django-auditlog uses a standard logging mechanism. The vulnerability could be triggered if user-provided data, such as request headers, is directly inserted into log messages without proper escaping.

Consider a simplified hypothetical code snippet within AuditlogMiddleware (or a similar component) in django-auditlog:

import logging

logger = logging.getLogger(__name__)

class AuditlogMiddleware:
    def __init__(self, get_response):
        self.get_response = get_response

    def __call__(self, request):
        # ... other middleware logic ...

        user_agent = request.META.get('HTTP_USER_AGENT', 'N/A')
        path_info = request.path_info

        log_message = f"Request Path: {path_info}, User-Agent: {user_agent}" # POTENTIAL VULNERABILITY - No escaping of user_agent
        logger.info(log_message)

        response = self.get_response(request)
        return response

Explanation:

  1. logger.info(log_message): This line logs a message. If the log_message contains special characters or commands that are interpreted by the log analysis tool, it could lead to command execution.
  2. user_agent = request.META.get('HTTP_USER_AGENT', 'N/A'): This retrieves the User-Agent header directly from the request. An attacker can control the value of the User-Agent header.
  3. f"Request Path: {path_info}, User-Agent: {user_agent}": This constructs the log message using an f-string, directly embedding the user_agent value into the log message without any sanitization or escaping.

If a log analysis tool processing these logs is vulnerable to command injection when it encounters certain characters or patterns within the User-Agent string, the attacker can inject a malicious payload through the User-Agent header, which will then be logged and executed by the log analysis tool.

Security Test Case:

Pre-test Setup:

  1. Set up a publicly accessible Django application that uses django-auditlog and is configured to log requests (at least path and User-Agent).
  2. Configure logging to write to a file that is processed by a vulnerable log analysis tool (for demonstration purposes, you might need to simulate or use a known vulnerable log analysis tool or a simplified script that mimics vulnerability). Important: Do not use a production log analysis system for testing this type of vulnerability without explicit permission and understanding the risks. A safe test environment is crucial.

Test Steps (Performed by External Attacker):

  1. Craft Malicious User-Agent: Create a User-Agent string containing a payload that is known to trigger command execution in the hypothetical vulnerable log analysis tool. For example, if the tool is vulnerable to shell injection, a payload might be:

    User-Agent:  `$(malicious_command)`

    or, URL encoded for HTTP header:

    User-Agent: %24%28malicious_command%29

    Replace malicious_command with a simple command for testing, like whoami or hostname, that will leave a visible trace in logs or system state if executed. For safety in a test environment, use commands that are harmless and easily auditable.

  2. Send HTTP Request with Malicious User-Agent: Use a tool like curl or a web browser's developer tools to send a request to the publicly accessible application, including the crafted User-Agent header. For example:

    curl -H "User-Agent: $(whoami)" http://your-application-url.com/some/path

  3. Analyze Logs: Check the logs generated by the application and processed by the log analysis tool. Look for evidence that the malicious_command (e.g., whoami) was executed on the server running the log analysis tool. This might be indicated by:

    • Output of the command appearing in logs processed by the analysis tool itself (if the tool logs its own execution).
    • Side effects of the command execution on the log analysis server (e.g., creation of a file, DNS lookup, etc., depending on the malicious_command used and the capabilities of the log analysis tool).

Expected Result: If the log analysis tool is vulnerable and django-auditlog does not sanitize the User-Agent header, the malicious_command injected in the User-Agent string will be executed on the server running the log analysis tool. The security test case is successful if you can observe the effects of the injected command execution.

2. Stored Cross‑Site Scripting (XSS) via Audit Log Entries

Vulnerability Name: Stored Cross‑Site Scripting (XSS)

Description:

  1. An attacker who can supply malicious data into a model’s fields—for example via a public form or other externally provided input—may inject an HTML/JavaScript payload (such as <script>alert("xss")</script>) into a field.
  2. When the model’s string representation (for example provided by a custom __str__ method) is captured by the audit logging system, the unsanitized value may later be rendered in an administrator’s audit log view.
  3. Audit log entries and difference information are built by calling helper functions like get_field_value that simply convert field values to strings (using Django’s smart_str) without applying an additional layer of HTML escaping.
  4. If the log viewing template or admin view does not apply uniform escaping, then an injected payload will be executed in the administrator’s browser.

Impact: Successful exploitation may allow an attacker to perform arbitrary JavaScript execution in an administrator’s browser. This can lead to session hijacking, extraction of sensitive session cookies, exfiltration of confidential audit trails, or further compromise of administrative functions.

Vulnerability Rank: High

Currently Implemented Mitigations:

  • Many output routines in the admin mixins (for example, those using Django’s format_html and related safe string helpers) escape values by default.
  • Log entry values are serialized and formatted via Django’s formatting functions (see methods such as changes_display_dict) before being displayed.

Missing Mitigations:

  • There is no explicit and “defense in depth” sanitization when incorporating data from untrusted model fields into audit log entries or diff reports.
  • The audit log code defers the responsibility for producing safe textual representations (via model methods such as __str__) to the calling application, with no blanket mechanism to re‑escape all logged content immediately prior to rendering.

Preconditions:

  • The application must allow external (or public) submission of data that is subsequently tracked by audit logging (e.g. via a web form or API).
  • An administrator (or similarly privileged user) must later access an audit log view where the unsanitized content is rendered (for example, in the Django admin interface).

Source Code Analysis:

  • In the file diff.py, the function get_field_value converts field values to strings using smart_str without additional sanitization. For DateTime and JSONField types the routines perform conversion (and a call to json.dumps for JSONField) but do not perform HTML escaping.
  • The function model_instance_diff iterates over model fields (selected via _meta.get_fields() and filtered by the helper track_field) and uses the possibly malicious output of get_field_value to build a diff dict without extra sanitization.
  • Earlier in the audit logging process (for example, via the call to Python built‑in str(instance) when capturing an object’s representation), an attacker‑controlled string (for example returned by a malicious __str__ method) may already be embedded in log entries.
  • These issues combined mean that if unsanitized data is stored in audit logs it may later be rendered without sufficient protection even if some parts of the output use Django safe string helpers.

Security Test Case:

  1. Identify or create a model that is tracked by the audit logging system.
  2. Modify (or simulate) the model so that a field (or the model’s __str__ method) returns a malicious payload such as <script>alert("xss")</script>.
  3. Submit this data (for example, via a public form) so that a new or updated instance is saved and captured by auditlog along with its diff data.
  4. Log in as an administrator and navigate to the audit log view where log entries and change audits are rendered.
  5. Verify that the malicious payload appears unsanitized in the output and, upon rendering in the browser, that the JavaScript code executes.

3. Sensitive Data Exposure via Serialized Audit Log Entries

Vulnerability Name: Sensitive Data Exposure

Description:

  1. The audit logging system optionally records a JSON‑serialized snapshot of a model’s state in the serialized_data field.
  2. If a tracked model contains sensitive information (for instance PII, financial data, or credentials) and such fields are not designated for masking via the registry’s mask_fields option, then that sensitive data will be stored in cleartext in the audit log.
  3. Unless the field name is explicitly flagged for masking, its value is output directly.
  4. An attacker with access to the audit logs—via an exposed admin interface, misconfigured API endpoint, or similar vector—could retrieve and abuse this confidential information.

Impact: Exposure of sensitive or confidential information to an attacker can lead to identity theft, fraud, reputational harm, or provide the adversary with intelligence to carry out further targeted attacks.

Vulnerability Rank: High

Currently Implemented Mitigations:

  • The audit logging registry allows developers to supply a list of sensitive fields to be masked via the mask_fields parameter.
  • When computing field differences in model_instance_diff (in diff.py), if a field is configured to be masked then its old and new values are passed through a masking function (mask_str) prior to logging.
  • It is generally expected that access to audit logs (for example in the Django Admin) is protected by robust authentication and permission checks.

Missing Mitigations:

  • There is no enforced or automatic masking (or encryption at rest) for all potentially sensitive fields; it relies entirely on explicit configurations in mask_fields.
  • There is no secondary layer of automated sensitivity scanning to catch fields that might have been inadvertently omitted from the masking configuration.

Preconditions:

  • The application is configured to capture a serialized snapshot of model state (i.e. using serialize_data=True for one or more models).
  • A model being tracked by auditlog contains sensitive data in one or more fields that are not included in the registry’s mask_fields configuration.
  • An attacker can access audit log entries—for example, by exploiting misconfigured access controls on the log viewing interface.

Source Code Analysis:

  • In diff.py, inside the model_instance_diff function, after comparing old and new field values (obtained via get_field_value), the code checks whether the field name belongs to mask_fields. If it does, both the old and new values are passed through the mask_str function before being stored in the diff.
  • Fields that are not flagged in mask_fields are logged in cleartext via a call to smart_str without masking.
  • In the migration files (for example, in 0011_logentry_serialized_data.py), the audit log model schema is defined to include the serialized_data JSONField. When using Django’s serialization routines (as seen in methods like _get_serialized_data_or_none), data is stored directly without any enforced encryption or masking.

Security Test Case:

  1. Select a model that is tracked by auditlog and that contains a field with sensitive data (for example, a “credit_card” or “ssn” field).
  2. Register the model with auditlog and deliberately leave the sensitive field out of the mask_fields configuration.
  3. Create or update an instance of the model with representative sensitive data.
  4. Verify that a corresponding audit log entry is created and inspect its serialized_data field (for example, through the Django Admin or via a direct database query).
  5. Confirm that the sensitive values appear in cleartext in the serialized JSON.
  6. (Optional) Reconfigure the registration to include the sensitive field in mask_fields and repeat the test to verify that the data is thereafter masked.