mirror of https://github.com/mitsuhiko/flask.git
You can not select more than 25 topics
Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
168 lines
7.1 KiB
168 lines
7.1 KiB
Security Considerations |
|
======================= |
|
|
|
Web applications usually face all kinds of security problems and it's very |
|
hard to get everything right. Flask tries to solve a few of these things |
|
for you, but there are a couple more you have to take care of yourself. |
|
|
|
.. _xss: |
|
|
|
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) |
|
-------------------------- |
|
|
|
Cross site scripting is the concept of injecting arbitrary HTML (and with |
|
it JavaScript) into the context of a website. To rememdy this, developers |
|
have to properly escape text so that it cannot include arbitrary HTML |
|
tags. For more information on that have a look at the Wikipedia article |
|
on `Cross-Site Scripting |
|
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_scripting>`_. |
|
|
|
Flask configures Jinja2 to automatically escape all values unless |
|
explicitly told otherwise. This should rule out all XSS problems caused |
|
in templates, but there are still other places where you have to be |
|
careful: |
|
|
|
- generating HTML without the help of Jinja2 |
|
- calling :class:`~flask.Markup` on data submitted by users |
|
- sending out HTML from uploaded files, never do that, use the |
|
`Content-Disposition: attachment` header to prevent that problem. |
|
- sending out textfiles from uploaded files. Some browsers are using |
|
content-type guessing based on the first few bytes so users could |
|
trick a browser to execute HTML. |
|
|
|
Another thing that is very important are unquoted attributes. While |
|
Jinja2 can protect you from XSS issues by escaping HTML, there is one |
|
thing it cannot protect you from: XSS by attribute injection. To counter |
|
this possible attack vector, be sure to always quote your attributes with |
|
either double or single quotes when using Jinja expressions in them: |
|
|
|
.. sourcecode:: html+jinja |
|
|
|
<a href="{{ href }}">the text</a> |
|
|
|
Why is this necessary? Because if you would not be doing that, an |
|
attacker could easily inject custom JavaScript handlers. For example an |
|
attacker could inject this piece of HTML+JavaScript: |
|
|
|
.. sourcecode:: html |
|
|
|
onmouseover=alert(document.cookie) |
|
|
|
When the user would then move with the mouse over the link, the cookie |
|
would be presented to the user in an alert window. But instead of showing |
|
the cookie to the user, a good attacker might also execute any other |
|
JavaScript code. In combination with CSS injections the attacker might |
|
even make the element fill out the entire page so that the user would |
|
just have to have the mouse anywhere on the page to trigger the attack. |
|
|
|
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) |
|
--------------------------------- |
|
|
|
Another big problem is CSRF. This is a very complex topic and I won't |
|
outline it here in detail just mention what it is and how to theoretically |
|
prevent it. |
|
|
|
So if your authentication information is stored in cookies you have |
|
implicit state management. By that I mean that the state of "being logged |
|
in" is controlled by a cookie and that cookie is sent with each request to |
|
a page. Unfortunately that really means "each request" so also requests |
|
triggered by 3rd party sites. If you don't keep that in mind some people |
|
might be able to trick your application's users with social engineering to |
|
do stupid things without them knowing. |
|
|
|
Say you have a specific URL that, when you sent `POST` requests to will |
|
delete a user's profile (say `http://example.com/user/delete`). If an |
|
attacker now creates a page that sends a post request to that page with |
|
some JavaScript he just has to trick some users to that page and their |
|
profiles will end up being deleted. |
|
|
|
Imagine you would run Facebook with millions of concurrent users and |
|
someone would send out links to images of little kittens. When a user |
|
would go to that page their profiles would get deleted while they are |
|
looking at images of fluffy cats. |
|
|
|
So how can you prevent yourself from that? Basically for each request |
|
that modifies content on the server you would have to either use a |
|
one-time token and store that in the cookie **and** also transmit it with |
|
the form data. After recieving the data on the server again you would |
|
then have to compare the two tokens and ensure they are equal. |
|
|
|
Why does not Flask do that for you? The ideal place for this to happen is |
|
the form validation framework which does not exist in Flask. |
|
|
|
.. _json-security: |
|
|
|
JSON Security |
|
------------- |
|
|
|
JSON itself is a high-level serialization format, so there is barely |
|
anything that could cause security problems, right? You can't declare |
|
recursive structures that could cause problems and the only thing that |
|
could possibly break are very large responses that can cause some kind of |
|
denial of service at the receiver's side. |
|
|
|
However there is a catch. Due to how browsers work the CSRF issue comes |
|
up with JSON unfortunately. Fortunately there is also a weird part of the |
|
JavaScript specification that can be used to solve that problem easily and |
|
Flask is kinda doing that for you by preventing you from doing dangerous |
|
stuff. Unfortunately that protection is only there for |
|
:func:`~flask.jsonify` so you are still at risk when using other ways to |
|
generate JSON. |
|
|
|
So what is the issue and how to avoid it? The problem are arrays at |
|
toplevel in JSON. Imagine you send the following data out in a JSON |
|
request. Say that's exporting the names and email adresses of all your |
|
friends for a part of the userinterface that is written in JavaScript. |
|
Not very uncommon: |
|
|
|
.. sourcecode:: javascript |
|
|
|
[ |
|
{"username": "admin", |
|
"email": "admin@localhost"} |
|
] |
|
|
|
And it is doing that of course only as long as you are logged in and only |
|
for you. And it is doing that for all `GET` requests to a certain URL, |
|
say the URL for that request is |
|
``http://example.com/api/get_friends.json``. |
|
|
|
So now what happens if a clever hacker is embedding this to his website |
|
and social engineers a victim to visiting his site: |
|
|
|
.. sourcecode:: html |
|
|
|
<script type=text/javascript> |
|
var captured = []; |
|
var oldArray = Array; |
|
function Array() { |
|
var obj = this, id = 0, capture = function(value) { |
|
obj.__defineSetter__(id++, capture); |
|
if (value) |
|
captured.push(value); |
|
}; |
|
capture(); |
|
} |
|
</script> |
|
<script type=text/javascript |
|
src=http://example.com/api/get_friends.json></script> |
|
<script type=text/javascript> |
|
Array = oldArray; |
|
// now we have all the data in the captured array. |
|
</script> |
|
|
|
If you know a bit of JavaScript internals you might know that it's |
|
possible to patch constructors and register callbacks for setters. An |
|
attacker can use this (like above) to get all the data you exported in |
|
your JSON file. The browser will totally ignore the ``application/json`` |
|
mimetype if ``text/javascript`` is defined as content type in the script |
|
tag and evaluate that as JavaScript. Because toplevel array elements are |
|
allowed (albeit useless) and we hooked in our own constructor, after that |
|
page loaded the data from the JSON response is in the `captured` array. |
|
|
|
Because it is a syntax error in JavaScript to have an object literal |
|
(``{...}``) toplevel an attacker could not just do a request to an |
|
external URL with the script tag to load up the data. So what Flask does |
|
is to only allow objects as toplevel elements when using |
|
:func:`~flask.jsonify`. Make sure to do the same when using an ordinary |
|
JSON generate function.
|
|
|