Howard Chu wrote: > A paper and presentation making the rounds, claiming to show how webapps using > LDAP are vulnerable to search filter spoofing attacks. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtahzm_R8e4 > http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-europe-08/Alonso-Parada/Whitepap... > > > Can't imagine that work like this gets peer-reviewed, because it's mostly > garbage. They concoct a scenario in section 4.1.1 of their paper, supposedly > showing how filter manipulation can allow a webapp user to bypass LDAP-based > authentication. It's ridiculous drivel though, since LDAP-based authentication > uses Bind requests and not search filters. Most LDAP deployments don't even > give search/compare access to userPassword attributes in the first place. Well, this is not really new: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/LDAP_injection Anyway, the paper is a bit bloated and the term "code injecting" sounds really over-loaded here. SQL injection attacks are generally much more powerful since an attacker can also write data. Compared to that manipulating search requests with LDAP filter injection is not such a massive attack vector.

> Just in case anybody out there might be bitten by this info - client-enforced > security is no security at all. This is why slapd has such an extensive ACL > engine - you enforce access controls on the server, and then it doesn't matter > what kind of garbage requests your clients send to you, they can only ever > access information that they were allowed to access. Ack, but ACLs only protect what's stored inside the LDAP server. There could be possible attacks when mapping username to wrong user entry or when reading access control data from wrong LDAP entries based on user's input which protects other app data.

Howard Chu wrote: > A paper and presentation making the rounds, claiming to show how webapps using > LDAP are vulnerable to search filter spoofing attacks. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtahzm_R8e4 > http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-europe-08/Alonso-Parada/Whitepap... > > > Can't imagine that work like this gets peer-reviewed, because it's mostly > garbage. They concoct a scenario in section 4.1.1 of their paper, supposedly > showing how filter manipulation can allow a webapp user to bypass LDAP-based > authentication. It's ridiculous drivel though, since LDAP-based authentication > uses Bind requests and not search filters. Most LDAP deployments don't even > give search/compare access to userPassword attributes in the first place. Well, this is not really new: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/LDAP_injection

– (attribute=value): If the filter used to construct the query lacks a logic operator (OR or AND), an injection like ”value)(injected_filter” will result in two filters: (attribute=value)(injected_filter). In the OpenLDAP implementations the second filter will be ignored, only the first one being executed. In ADAM, a query with two filters isn ́t allowed. Therefore, the injection is useless.

Anyway, the paper is a bit bloated and the term "code injecting" sounds really over-loaded here. SQL injection attacks are generally much more powerful since an attacker can also write data. Compared to that manipulating search requests with LDAP filter injection is not such a massive attack vector.

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com&gt; wrote: > A paper and presentation making the rounds, claiming to show how webapps > using LDAP are vulnerable to search filter spoofing attacks. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtahzm_R8e4 > http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-europe-08/Alonso-Parada/Whitepap... > > Can't imagine that work like this gets peer-reviewed, because it's mostly > garbage. They concoct a scenario in section 4.1.1 of their paper, supposedly > showing how filter manipulation can allow a webapp user to bypass LDAP-based > authentication. It's ridiculous drivel though, since LDAP-based > authentication uses Bind requests and not search filters. Most LDAP > deployments don't even give search/compare access to userPassword attributes > in the first place. > > Just in case anybody out there might be bitten by this info - > client-enforced security is no security at all. This is why slapd has such > an extensive ACL engine - you enforce access controls on the server, and > then it doesn't matter what kind of garbage requests your clients send to > you, they can only ever access information that they were allowed to access. > This is also why the old pam_ldap authorization scheme was such a bad idea, > it relied on the LDAP client (pam_ldap) to correctly implement > authorization, instead of the server. (Multiply that by hundreds or > thousands of clients and you have an unmanageable, insecurable mess.) This > is why we have nssov today. > > Of course, this is no excuse to be sloppy when writing your web apps. But if > you've configured ACLs to adequately protect your data, then it doesn't > matter how sloppy your clients are. Personally, as a penetration tester, security professional - among other things - I do not agree. O partially. IMNSHO, the authors have simply traslated in the LDAP world the exactly same problematic that a generic web apps can have regarding SQLI. I do not think they are very different, but LDAP problem in these area are much less popular in the web apps context, probably for reasons of implementation: who like to put some structured information in an LDAP server instead of a relational db? zero or nearly so (I do, because i know LDAP but few others do the same) And I am equally convinced that when there are deficiencies in the webapp input validation the issues are actually the same.

are based in carrying out these operations - against the relational or the ldap server - using a webapps user (not the real user), with data access privilege, in general , much broader. For ease of implementation, perhaps. And the ACL serve little in these cases, both in the case of a relational db that of a LDAP server. Why ? the design of the application is wrong , it does not respect the principle of least privilege. A long time ago i have deployed a web application based on different levels of security privileges: the service users could access the backend LDAP server , but only if the access came from a specific ip address (an application server) and this user can could read some attribute of a specific OU of a specific DIT, others authenticated user could write some specific attribute of a subset of a DIT (and they cannot read other attribute). Using the sophisticated ACL that OPENLDAP offer, different security zone and so on. How many would do it or do it?

Best Regards and thanks for sharing.

devzero2000 wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com&gt; wrote: >> >> A paper and presentation making the rounds, claiming to show how webapps >> using LDAP are vulnerable to search filter spoofing attacks. >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtahzm_R8e4 >> >> http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-europe-08/Alonso-Parada/Whitepap... >> >> Can't imagine that work like this gets peer-reviewed, because it's mostly >> garbage. They concoct a scenario in section 4.1.1 of their paper, >> supposedly >> showing how filter manipulation can allow a webapp user to bypass >> LDAP-based >> authentication. It's ridiculous drivel though, since LDAP-based >> authentication uses Bind requests and not search filters. Most LDAP >> deployments don't even give search/compare access to userPassword >> attributes >> in the first place. >> >> Just in case anybody out there might be bitten by this info - >> client-enforced security is no security at all. This is why slapd has >> such >> an extensive ACL engine - you enforce access controls on the server, and >> then it doesn't matter what kind of garbage requests your clients send to >> you, they can only ever access information that they were allowed to >> access. >> This is also why the old pam_ldap authorization scheme was such a bad >> idea, >> it relied on the LDAP client (pam_ldap) to correctly implement >> authorization, instead of the server. (Multiply that by hundreds or >> thousands of clients and you have an unmanageable, insecurable mess.) >> This >> is why we have nssov today. >> >> Of course, this is no excuse to be sloppy when writing your web apps. But >> if >> you've configured ACLs to adequately protect your data, then it doesn't >> matter how sloppy your clients are. > > Personally, as a penetration tester, security professional - among > other things - I do not agree. > O partially. > > IMNSHO, the authors have simply traslated in the LDAP world the > exactly same problematic that a generic web apps can have regarding > SQLI. I do not think they are very different, but LDAP problem in > these area are much less popular in the web apps context, probably for > reasons of implementation: who like to put some structured > information in an LDAP server instead of a relational db? zero or > nearly so (I do, because i know LDAP but few others do the same) And I > am equally convinced that when there are deficiencies in the webapp > input validation the issues are actually the same. Nonsense, the issues are nowhere near the same. SQL is a liability because with injection you can construct any statement of your choosing - Query, create, modify, or delete information. This liability exists precisely because SQL is a text-based language

For an LDAP scenario the window of vulnerability is restricted to a search filter, only. You cannot use injection to turn an LDAP Search request into a Modify or Delete request. You cannot destroy or forge data using this "attack" - it is a much smaller attack surface, and the payoff for an attack is miniscule. This is a fact - all LDAP-based apps are inherently less vulnerable than all SQL-based apps, for this simple reason.

And again, with ACLs configured on the server, all any attacker can get is access to information they were already permitted to see, which completely closes the window of vulnerability. Most of the web app > > are based in carrying out these operations - against the relational or > the ldap server - using a webapps user (not the real user), with data > access privilege, in general , much broader. For ease of > implementation, perhaps. And the ACL serve little in these cases, both > in the case of a relational db that of a LDAP server. > > Why ? the design of the application is wrong , it does not respect the > principle of least privilege. A long time ago i have deployed a web > application based on different levels of security privileges: the > service users could access the backend LDAP server , but only if the > access came from a specific ip address (an application server) and > this user can could read some attribute of a specific OU of a specific > DIT, others authenticated user could write some specific attribute of > a subset of a DIT (and they cannot read other attribute). Using the > sophisticated ACL that OPENLDAP offer, different security zone and so > on. > > How many would do it or do it? Look at the volume of messages on this list related to ACLs - clearly, most OpenLDAP admins are both conscious of and conscientious about using effective ACLs.

> Best Regards and thanks for sharing. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/