|
|||||||||||
|
Re: XSS
From: Jeff Williams (at) Aspect <(at)>
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 10:57:47 EST Matt is exactly right here. Even web sites with no storage can be susceptible to really serious XSS attacks. These attacks are simply reflected off a vulnerable server. We've been calling these 'external XSS' attacks -- because the attack is never stored on the vulnerable web server. Can anyone think of any differences between 'persistent' and 'external' XSS attacks in terms of the damage they can cause? They are definitely different in terms of the difficulty of launching the attack (external XSS may even be easier!) -- but the consequences are the same right? If that's true then 'external XSS' would represent a more serious risk than the persistent variety. --Jeff
Jeff Williams
John- Two things.... First, there are really two types of XSS. Persistent, where the injected code is stored within the web application, such as in distribution lists, databases, etc..., Transaction based, requiring a user to perform an action in order to be affected, such as click on a link, view a page with malicious script in it, etc... Therefore, any site that is accepting any form of user input is potentially vulnerable...though the risk of persistent XSS exceeds the risk of transaction based XSS in most cases. Second, XSS is not only used to grab a users session ID. An attacker could inject code into the page to redirect the user or modify presentation of content. Imagine an corporate site where you could add/modify a press release or news items, could you impact the companies stock price or lessen consumer confidence? Imagine a pharmaceutical site where you could modify dosage for medication, could you get someone to overdose? mm -- Matthew P. Miller www.atstake.com On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 11:35 AM, John Madden wrote:Received on Wed Dec 11 12:14:34 2002 This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 23 2006 - 14:07:46 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||