• CWE-471: Modification of Assumed-Immutable Data (MAID)

Okay, here’s a translation and expansion of that statement, suitable for a security report or technical documentation, maintaining a professional and precise tone. I’ll provide a few options, ranging in detail, to suit different audiences. I’m also including explanations of the underlying issues and potential remediation strategies. Option 1: Concise & Formal (for Executive Summary/High-Level Report) “A critical vulnerability exists wherein an assumed-immutable element within the system is susceptible to unauthorized modification by a malicious actor. This circumvents intended design constraints and potentially compromises data integrity and system stability.” Option 2: More Detailed (for Technical Report/Developer Briefing) “The system’s design incorporates an element intended to be immutable, meaning it should not be altered after initialization. However, a flaw in the implementation allows an attacker to bypass this intended immutability. This vulnerability enables unauthorized modification of the element’s state, potentially leading to data corruption, privilege escalation, or other malicious outcomes. The current design relies on [specific mechanism, e.g., read-only memory, constant variable declaration] which has been circumvented through [specific attack vector, e.g., memory corruption, reflection, unsafe API usage].” Option 3: Most Detailed (for Detailed Technical Analysis/Root Cause Investigation) “The system’s architecture designates [specific element, e.g., configuration file, lookup table, cryptographic key] as immutable to ensure [specific security property, e.g., consistent behavior, prevention of tampering]. The implementation relies on [specific mechanism, e.g., final keyword in Java, read-only file permissions, hardware protection]. However, a vulnerability has been identified that allows an attacker to bypass this protection. Specifically, [detailed explanation of the attack vector, including code snippets or pseudocode if appropriate]. This allows the attacker to modify the value of [specific attribute/field] within the element, leading to [specific consequences, e.g., alteration of application logic, compromise of sensitive data, denial of service]. The root cause appears to be [specific coding error, design flaw, or misconfiguration].” Explanation of the Underlying Issues & Remediation Strategies (Applicable to all options):

  • What’s the Problem? The core issue is a violation of the principle of immutability. Immutability is a powerful tool for building secure and reliable systems. When an element is supposed to be unchangeable, any ability to modify it represents a significant security risk.
  • Why is it Dangerous? The consequences can be severe: * Data Corruption: Modified data can lead to incorrect calculations, flawed decisions, and unreliable results. * Privilege Escalation: An attacker might be able to gain higher privileges than they should have. * Code Execution: In some cases, modifying immutable data could allow an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code. * Denial of Service: Corrupted data could crash the system or make it unavailable. * Compromise of Sensitive Information: If the immutable element contains secrets (passwords, API keys, etc.), those secrets could be exposed.
  • Potential Remediation Strategies: * Review the Design: Re-evaluate the design to ensure that immutability is truly necessary and that the intended protection is appropriate. * Strengthen the Implementation: * Use Stronger Immutability Constructs: If using a programming language with immutability features (e.g., final in Java, const in C++), ensure they are used correctly and consistently. * Hardware Protection: Consider using hardware-based protection mechanisms (e.g., read-only memory, secure enclaves) to enforce immutability. * Code Reviews: Implement rigorous code review processes to identify and prevent immutability violations. * Input Validation: If the immutable element is derived from user input, implement strict input validation to prevent malicious data from being introduced. * Least Privilege: Ensure that only authorized users and processes have access to modify the immutable element. * Regular Security Audits: Conduct regular security audits to identify and address immutability vulnerabilities. * Runtime Integrity Checks: Implement runtime checks to verify the integrity of the immutable element and detect any unauthorized modifications.

To help me tailor the translation even further, could you tell me:

  • What is the specific element that is being modified? (e.g., a configuration file, a cryptographic key, a database record) * What programming language or platform is involved? * What is the intended purpose of the element? * Who is the intended audience for this statement?

CWE-471: Modification of Assumed-Immutable Data (MAID)

CWE ID: 471
Name: Modification of Assumed-Immutable Data (MAID)

Beschreibung

Okay, here’s a translation and expansion of that statement, suitable for a security report or technical documentation, maintaining a professional and precise tone. I’ll provide a few options, ranging in detail, to suit different audiences. I’m also including explanations of the underlying issues and potential remediation strategies.

Option 1: Concise & Formal (for Executive Summary/High-Level Report)

“A critical vulnerability exists wherein an assumed-immutable element within the system is susceptible to unauthorized modification by a malicious actor. This circumvents intended design constraints and potentially compromises data integrity and system stability.”

Option 2: More Detailed (for Technical Report/Developer Briefing)

“The system’s design incorporates an element intended to be immutable, meaning it should not be altered after initialization. However, a flaw in the implementation allows an attacker to bypass this intended immutability. This vulnerability enables unauthorized modification of the element’s state, potentially leading to data corruption, privilege escalation, or other malicious outcomes. The current design relies on [specific mechanism, e.g., read-only memory, constant variable declaration] which has been circumvented through [specific attack vector, e.g., memory corruption, reflection, unsafe API usage].”

Option 3: Most Detailed (for Detailed Technical Analysis/Root Cause Investigation)

“The system’s architecture designates [specific element, e.g., configuration file, lookup table, cryptographic key] as immutable to ensure [specific security property, e.g., consistent behavior, prevention of tampering]. The implementation relies on [specific mechanism, e.g., final keyword in Java, read-only file permissions, hardware protection]. However, a vulnerability has been identified that allows an attacker to bypass this protection. Specifically, [detailed explanation of the attack vector, including code snippets or pseudocode if appropriate]. This allows the attacker to modify the value of [specific attribute/field] within the element, leading to [specific consequences, e.g., alteration of application logic, compromise of sensitive data, denial of service]. The root cause appears to be [specific coding error, design flaw, or misconfiguration].”

Explanation of the Underlying Issues & Remediation Strategies (Applicable to all options):

  • What’s the Problem? The core issue is a violation of the principle of immutability. Immutability is a powerful tool for building secure and reliable systems. When an element is supposed to be unchangeable, any ability to modify it represents a significant security risk.

  • Why is it Dangerous? The consequences can be severe:

    • Data Corruption: Modified data can lead to incorrect calculations, flawed decisions, and unreliable results.
    • Privilege Escalation: An attacker might be able to gain higher privileges than they should have.
    • Code Execution: In some cases, modifying immutable data could allow an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.
    • Denial of Service: Corrupted data could crash the system or make it unavailable.
    • Compromise of Sensitive Information: If the immutable element contains secrets (passwords, API keys, etc.), those secrets could be exposed.

  • Potential Remediation Strategies:

    • Review the Design: Re-evaluate the design to ensure that immutability is truly necessary and that the intended protection is appropriate.
    • Strengthen the Implementation:
      • Use Stronger Immutability Constructs: If using a programming language with immutability features (e.g., final in Java, const in C++), ensure they are used correctly and consistently.
      • Hardware Protection: Consider using hardware-based protection mechanisms (e.g., read-only memory, secure enclaves) to enforce immutability.
      • Code Reviews: Implement rigorous code review processes to identify and prevent immutability violations.
    • Input Validation: If the immutable element is derived from user input, implement strict input validation to prevent malicious data from being introduced.
    • Least Privilege: Ensure that only authorized users and processes have access to modify the immutable element.
    • Regular Security Audits: Conduct regular security audits to identify and address immutability vulnerabilities.
    • Runtime Integrity Checks: Implement runtime checks to verify the integrity of the immutable element and detect any unauthorized modifications.

To help me tailor the translation even further, could you tell me:

  • What is the specific element that is being modified? (e.g., a configuration file, a cryptographic key, a database record)
  • What programming language or platform is involved?
  • What is the intended purpose of the element?
  • Who is the intended audience for this statement?

Erweiterte Beschreibung

Okay, incorporating that additional context, here are revised translations, building on the previous options. I’ve emphasized the “critical input” and “assumed immutability” aspects.

Option 1: Concise & Formal (for Executive Summary/High-Level Report)

“A critical vulnerability exists wherein a resource, essential to the application’s functionality, is susceptible to unauthorized modification. This resource was designed to be immutable – meaning it should not be altered – but a flaw in the implementation allows attackers to circumvent this protection. This compromises the application’s integrity and reliability.”

Option 2: More Detailed (for Technical Report/Developer Briefing)

“The application relies on certain inputs that are critical to its proper functioning. These inputs are intended to be immutable, meaning they should not be modified after initialization. However, a vulnerability has been identified that allows an attacker to bypass this intended immutability. This is particularly concerning for resources often assumed to be immutable, such as hidden form fields in web applications, cookies, and reverse DNS lookups. The current design relies on [specific mechanism] which has been circumvented through [specific attack vector]. This enables unauthorized modification of the resource’s state, potentially leading to data corruption, privilege escalation, or other malicious outcomes.”

Option 3: Most Detailed (for Detailed Technical Analysis/Root Cause Investigation)

“The application’s functionality depends on specific inputs that are considered critical and should be protected from modification. These resources are designed to be immutable to ensure consistent behavior and prevent tampering. However, a vulnerability has been identified that allows an attacker to bypass this protection. This is a significant concern, as resources frequently assumed to be immutable – such as hidden form fields in web applications, cookies, and reverse DNS lookups – are now susceptible to unauthorized modification. The implementation relies on [specific mechanism] which has been circumvented through [specific attack vector]. This allows the attacker to modify the value of [specific attribute/field] within the element, leading to [specific consequences, e.g., alteration of application logic, compromise of sensitive data, denial of service]. The root cause appears to be [specific coding error, design flaw, or misconfiguration]. The fact that this vulnerability affects a resource intended to be immutable highlights a fundamental design flaw that requires immediate remediation.”

Key Changes & Explanations:

  • Emphasis on “Critical Input”: I’ve explicitly stated that the affected input is “critical to the application’s functioning.”
  • Reinforcement of “Assumed Immutability”: I’ve added phrases like “This is particularly concerning” and “The fact that this vulnerability affects a resource intended to be immutable highlights a fundamental design flaw” to underscore the severity of the issue.
  • Examples: I’ve incorporated the examples you provided (hidden form fields, cookies, reverse DNS lookups) to illustrate the types of resources that are commonly affected.
  • Stronger Conclusion (Option 3): The most detailed option now concludes with a statement emphasizing the fundamental design flaw and the need for immediate remediation.

To further refine these translations, could you tell me:

  • What is the specific context of this vulnerability? (e.g., a web application, a mobile app, a desktop application)
  • What is the most likely attack vector? (e.g., cross-site scripting, SQL injection, buffer overflow)
  • What is the potential impact of this vulnerability? (e.g., data breach, denial of service, privilege escalation)

Risikominderungsmaßnahmen

Maßnahme (Architecture and Design)

Effektivität: Unknown
Beschreibung: Okay, here are a few options for translating that text, maintaining a professional tone and incorporating relevant terminology. I’ve aimed for clarity and precision.

Option 1: Concise & Formal (for Executive Summary/High-Level Report)

“To mitigate the risk of data tampering, implement integrity checks to detect unauthorized modifications when data is processed through untrusted sources. Alternatively, ensure data is stored and transmitted within a trusted environment, isolated from external influence.”

Option 2: More Detailed (for Technical Report/Developer Briefing)

“When data is stored or transmitted through sources that cannot be guaranteed secure, implement integrity checks to detect any unauthorized modification. These checks should utilize robust hashing algorithms or digital signatures to verify data integrity. As an alternative, store and transmit the data within a trusted location that is protected from external influence and subject to strict access controls. This trusted location should be regularly audited to ensure its continued security posture.”

Option 3: Most Detailed (for Detailed Technical Analysis/Root Cause Investigation)

“To safeguard against data corruption or unauthorized modification, implement robust integrity checks whenever data is handled through untrusted sources. These checks should encompass techniques such as cryptographic hashing (e.g., SHA-256, SHA-3) or the use of digital signatures to verify data integrity. Alternatively, the data should be stored and transmitted within a trusted location that is isolated from external influence and subject to strict access controls. This trusted location should be hardened against attack, regularly monitored for suspicious activity, and subject to periodic security audits to ensure its continued integrity. The chosen mitigation strategy should be documented and integrated into the application’s security architecture.”

Key Changes & Explanations:

  • Specificity: I’ve added examples of hashing algorithms (SHA-256, SHA-3) to provide more concrete guidance.
  • Emphasis on “Trusted Location”: I’ve elaborated on what constitutes a “trusted location” – hardened against attack, regularly monitored, and subject to audits.
  • Integration (Option 3): The most detailed option emphasizes the importance of integrating the chosen mitigation strategy into the application’s overall security architecture.
  • Professional Language: I’ve used terms like “robust,” “hardened,” “security posture,” and “security architecture” to maintain a professional tone.

To further refine these translations, could you tell me:

  • What type of data is being stored/transmitted? (e.g., sensitive personal information, financial data, application configuration files)
  • What are the potential threats to the data? (e.g., malicious insiders, external attackers, compromised systems)
  • What existing security controls are already in place?