This attack relies on the attacker using unexpected formats for representing IP addresses. Networked applications may expect network location information in a specific format, such as fully qualified domains names (FQDNs), URL, IP address, or IP Address ranges. If the location information is not validated against a variety of different possible encodings and formats, the adversary can use an alternate format to bypass application access control.
Likelihood Of Attack
The table(s) below shows the other attack patterns and high level categories that are related to this attack pattern. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as CanFollow, PeerOf, and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar attack patterns that the user may want to explore.
Standard Attack Pattern - A standard level attack pattern in CAPEC is focused on a specific methodology or technique used in an attack. It is often seen as a singular piece of a fully executed attack. A standard attack pattern is meant to provide sufficient details to understand the specific technique and how it attempts to accomplish a desired goal. A standard level attack pattern is a specific type of a more abstract meta level attack pattern.
The target software must fail to anticipate all of the possible valid encodings of an IP/web address.
The adversary must have the ability to communicate with the server.
The adversary has only to try IP address format combinations.
The adversary needs to have knowledge of an alternative IP address encoding that bypasses the access control policy of an application. Alternatively, the adversary can simply try to brute-force various encoding possibilities.
The table below 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.
Design: Default deny access control policies
Design: Input validation routines should check and enforce both input data types and content against a positive specification. In regards to IP addresses, this should include the authorized manner for the application to represent IP addresses and not accept user specified IP addresses and IP address formats (such as ranges)
Implementation: Perform input validation for all remote content.
An adversary identifies an application server that applies a security policy based on the domain and application name. For example, the access control policy covers authentication and authorization for anyone accessing http://example.domain:8080/application. However, by using the IP address of the host instead (http://192.168.0.1:8080/application), the application authentication and authorization controls may be bypassed. The adversary relies on the victim applying policy to the namespace abstraction and not having a default deny policy in place to manage exceptions.
A Related Weakness relationship associates a weakness with this attack pattern. Each association implies a weakness that must exist for a given attack to be successful. If multiple weaknesses are associated with the attack pattern, then any of the weaknesses (but not necessarily all) may be present for the attack to be successful. Each related weakness is identified by a CWE identifier.
More information is available — Please select a different filter.
Page Last Updated or Reviewed:
July 31, 2018