|
|
|
|
| CAPEC-81: Web Server Logs Tampering |
 Description Web Logs Tampering attacks involve an attacker injecting, deleting or otherwise tampering with the contents of web logs typically for the purposes of masking other malicious behavior. Additionally, writing malicious data to log files may target jobs, filters, reports, and other agents that process the logs in an asynchronous attack pattern. This pattern of attack is similar to "Log Injection-Tampering-Forging" except that in this case, the attack is targeting the logs of the web server and not the application. Likelihood Of Attack Typical Severity Execution Flow Explore Determine Application Web Server Log File Format: The attacker observes the system and looks for indicators of which logging utility is being used by the web server. | Techniques |
|---|
| Determine logging utility being used by application web server (e.g. log4j), only possible if the application is known by the attacker or if the application returns error messages with logging utility information. |
Experiment Determine Injectable Content: The attacker launches various logged actions with malicious data to determine what sort of log injection is possible. | Techniques |
|---|
| Attacker triggers logged actions with maliciously crafted data as inputs, parameters, arguments, etc. |
Exploit Manipulate Log Files: The attacker alters the log contents either directly through manipulation or forging or indirectly through injection of specially crafted request that the web server will receive and write into the logs. This type of attack typically follows another attack and is used to try to cover the traces of the previous attack. | Techniques |
|---|
Indirectly through injection, use carriage return and/or line feed characters to start a new line in the log file, and then, add a fake entry. For example: The HTTP request for "/index.html%0A%0DIP_ADDRESS- - DATE_FORMAT] "GET /forged-path HTTP/1.1" 200 - "-" USER_AGENT" may add the log line into Apache "access_log" (for example). Different applications may require different encodings of the carriage return and line feed characters. | Directly through log file or database manipulation, use carriage return and/or line feed characters to start a new line in the log file, and then, add a fake entry. For example: The HTTP request for "/index.html%0A%0DIP_ADDRESS- - DATE_FORMAT] "GET /forged-path HTTP/1.1" 200 - "-" USER_AGENT" may add the log line into Apache "access_log" (for example). Different applications may require different encodings of the carriage return and line feed characters. | | Directly through log file or database manipulation, modify existing log entries. |
Prerequisites
| Target server software must be a HTTP server that performs web logging. |
Skills Required
[Level: Low] To input faked entries into Web logs |
Resources Required
| Ability to send specially formatted HTTP request to web server |
Consequences  This table specifies different individual consequences associated with the attack pattern. The Scope identifies the security property that is violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an adversary succeeds in their attack. The Likelihood provides information about how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a pattern will be used to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to achieve a different impact.| Scope | Impact | Likelihood |
|---|
Integrity | Modify Data | |
Mitigations
| Design: Use input validation before writing to web log |
| Design: Validate all log data before it is output |
Example Instances
| Most web servers have a public interface, even if the majority of the site is password protected, there is usually at least a login site and brochureware that is publicly available. HTTP requests to the site are also generally logged to a Web log. From an attacker point of view, standard HTTP requests containing a malicious payload can be sent to the public website (with no other access required), when those requests appear in the log (such as http://victimsite/index.html?< malicious script> if they are followed by an administrator this may be sufficient to probe the administrator's host or local network. |
Taxonomy Mappings CAPEC mappings to ATT&CK techniques leverage an inheritance model to streamline and minimize direct CAPEC/ATT&CK mappings. Inheritance of a mapping is indicated by text stating that the parent CAPEC has relevant ATT&CK mappings. Note that the ATT&CK Enterprise Framework does not use an inheritance model as part of the mapping to CAPEC.Relevant to the ATT&CK taxonomy mapping (see
parent
) References
[REF-1] G. Hoglund and
G. McGraw. "Exploiting Software: How to Break Code". Addison-Wesley. 2004-02.
|
 Content History | Submissions |
|---|
| Submission Date | Submitter | Organization |
|---|
| 2014-06-23 (Version 2.6) | CAPEC Content Team | The MITRE Corporation | | | Modifications |
|---|
| Modification Date | Modifier | Organization |
|---|
| 2017-05-01 (Version 2.10) | CAPEC Content Team | The MITRE Corporation | | Updated Related_Weaknesses | | 2021-06-24 (Version 3.5) | CAPEC Content Team | The MITRE Corporation | | Updated Related_Weaknesses | | 2022-09-29 (Version 3.8) | CAPEC Content Team | The MITRE Corporation | | Updated @Name | | Previous Entry Names |
|---|
| Change Date | Previous Entry Name |
|---|
| 2022-09-29 (Version 3.8) | Web Logs Tampering | |
More information is available — Please select a different filter.
|