CWE-352
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
AI Translation Available
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
Status
stable
Abstraction
compound
Likelihood
medium
Affected Platforms
Web Based
Web Server
Technical Details
AI Translation
Common Consequences
confidentiality
integrity
availability
non-repudiation
access control
Impacts
gain privileges or assume identity
bypass protection mechanism
read application data
modify application data
dos: crash, exit, or restart
Detection Methods
manual analysis
automated static analysis
automated static analysis - binary or bytecode
manual static analysis - binary or bytecode
dynamic analysis with automated results interpretation
dynamic analysis with manual results interpretation
manual static analysis - source code
automated static analysis - source code
architecture or design review
Potential Mitigations
Phases:
architecture and design
implementation
Descriptions:
•
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330]
Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
•
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
•
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.
•
Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
•
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). [REF-332]
•
Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller:
When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same.
Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult.
This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
•
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.