Level 5 of the Stripe CTF revolved around a design issue in an OpenID like protocol.
def authenticated?(body)
body =~ /[^\w]AUTHENTICATED[^\w]*$/
end
...
if authenticated?(body)
session[:auth_user] = username
session[:auth_host] = host
return "Remote server responded with: #{body}." \
" Authenticated as #{username}@#{host}!"
This level is an implementation of a federated identity protocol. You give it an endpoint URI and a username and password, it posts the username and password to the endpoint URI, and if the response is 'AUTHENTICATED' then access is allowed. It is easy to be authenticated on a server you control, but this level requires you to authenticate from the server running the level. This level only talks to stripe CTF servers so the first step is to upload a document to the level 2 server containing the text 'AUTHENTICATED' and we can now authenticate on a level 2 server. Notice that the level 5 server will dump out the content of the endpoint URI and that the regexp it uses to detect the text 'AUTHENTICATED' can match on that dump. Accordingly I uploaded an authenticated file to
https://level02-2.stripe-ctf.com/user-ajvivlehdt/uploads/authenticated
Using that as my endpoint URI means authenticating as level 2. I can then choose the following endpoint
URI to authenticate as level 5.
https://level05-1.stripe-ctf.com/user-qtoyekwrod/?pingback=https%3A%2F%2Flevel02-2.stripe-ctf.com%2Fuser-ajvivlehdt%2Fuploads%2Fauthenticated&username=a&password=a
Navigating
to that URI results in the level 5 server telling me I'm authenticated as level 2 and lists the text of the level 2 file 'AUTHENTICATED'. Feeding this back into the level 5 server as my endpoint
URI means level 5 seeing 'AUTHENTICATED' coming back from a level 5 URI.
I didn't see any particular code review red flags, really the issue here is that the regular expression testing for 'AUTHENTICATED' is too permisive and the protocol itself doesn't do enough. The protocol requires only a set piece of common literal text to be returned which makes it easy for a server to accidentally fall into authenticating. Having the endpoint URI have to return variable text based on the input would make it much harder for a server to accidentally authenticate.
Level 4 and level 6 of the Stripe CTF had solutions around XSS.
> Registered Users
<%= user[:username] %>
(password: <%= user[:password] %>, last active <%= last_active %>)
The level 4 web application lets you transfer karma to another user and in doing so you are also forced to expose your password to that user. The main user page displays a list of users who have transfered karma to you along with their password. The password is not HTML encoded so we can inject HTML into that user's browser. For instance, we could create an account with the following HTML as the password which will result in XSS with that HTML:
This HTML runs script that uses jQuery to post to the transfer URI resulting in a transfer of karma from the attacked user to the attacker user, and also the attacked user's
password.
Code review red flags in this case included lack of encoding when using user controlled content to create HTML content, storing passwords in plain text in the database, and displaying passwords generally. By design the web app shows users passwords which is a very bad idea.
...
def self.safe_insert(table, key_values)
key_values.each do |key, value|
# Just in case people try to exfiltrate
# level07-password-holder's password
if value.kind_of?(String) &&
(value.include?('"') || value.include?("'"))
raise "Value has unsafe characters"
end
end
conn[table].insert(key_values)
end
This web app does a much better job than the level 4 app with HTML injection. They use encoding whenever creating HTML using user controlled data, however they don't use encoding when injecting JSON data into script (see post_data initialization above). This JSON data is the last five most recent messages sent on the app so we get to inject script directly. However, the system also ensures that no strings we write contains single or double quotes so we can't get out of the string in the JSON data directly. As it turns out, HTML lets you jump out of a script block using no matter where you are in script. For instance, in the middle of a value in some JSON data we can jump out of script. But we still want to run script, so we can jump right back in. So the frame so far for the message we're going to post is the following:
Seems generally bad to embed sensitive info in the URI (the http+aes URI scheme’s decryption key) similar to the now deprecated password field.
Use case is covered here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012JanMar/0811.html. Also discussion including someone mentioning the issue above.
Elaborating on a previous brief post on the topic of Web Worker initialization race conditions, there's two important points to avoid a race condition when setting up a Worker:
For example the following has no race becaues the spec guarentees that messages posted to a worker during its first synchronous block of execution will be queued and handled after that block. So the worker gets a chance to setup its onmessage handler. No race:
'parent.js':
var worker = new Worker();
worker.postMessage("initialize");
'worker.js':
onmessage = function(e) {
// ...
}
The following has a race because there's no guarentee that the parent's onmessage handler is setup before the worker executes postMessage. Race (violates 1):
'parent.js':
var worker = new Worker();
worker.onmessage = function(e) {
// ...
};
'worker.js':
postMessage("initialize");
The following has a race because the worker has no onmessage handler set in its first synchronous execution block and so the parent's postMessage may be sent before the worker sets its onmessage handler. Race (violates 2):
'parent.js':
var worker = new Worker();
worker.postMessage("initialize");
'worker.js':
setTimeout(
function() {
onmessage = function(e) {
// ...
}
},
0);
Awwww
“Staff writer J.O. Rolston’s Jan. 28 feature “Swing Set,” about swing revivalists Squirrel Nut Zippers, was mistakenly written in 2012. He meant to write it in 1997. The Onion regrets the error.”
I like Squirrel Nut Zippers…
I've made two simple command line tools related to the console window and Win7 jump lists. The source is available for both but neither is much more than the sort of samples you'd find on MSDN =).
SetAppUserModelId lets you change the Application User Model ID for the current console window. The AppUserModelId is the value Win7 uses to group together icons on the task bar and is what the task bar's jump lists are associated with. The tool lets you change that as well as the icon and name that appear in the task bar for the window, and the command to launch if the user attempts to re-launch the application from its task bar icon.
SetJumpList lets you set the jump list associated with a particular AppUserModelId. You pass the AppUserModelId as the only parameter and then in its standard input you give it lines specifying items that should appear in the jump list and what to execute when those items are picked.
I put these together to make my build environment easier to deal with at work. I have to deal with multiple enlistments in many different branches and so I wrote a simple script around these two tools to group my build windows by branch name in the task bar, and to add the history of commands I've used to launch the build environment console windows to the jump list of each.
QFC, the grocery store closest to me, has those irritating shoppers cards. They try to motivate me to use it with discounts, but that just makes me want to use a card, I don't care whose card and I don't care if the data is accurate. They should let me have my data or make it useful to me so that I actually care.
I can imagine several useful tools based on this: automatic grocery lists, recipes using the food you purchased, cheaper alternatives to your purchases, other things you might like based on what you purchased, or integration with dieting websites or software. At any rate, right now all I care about is getting the discount from using a card, but if they made the data available to me then the grocery store could align our interests and I'd want to ensure the data's accuracy.
I'm a big fan of the concept of registerProtocolHandler in HTML 5 and in FireFox 3, but not quite the implementation. From a high level, it allows web apps to register themselves as handlers of an URL scheme so for (the canonical) example, GMail can register for the mailto URL scheme. I like the concept:
registerProtocolHandler("info:lccn/{lccnID}", "htttp://www.librarything.com/search_works.php?q={lccnID}", "LibraryThing LCCN")
I've found while debugging networking in IE its often useful to quickly tell if a string is encoded in UTF-8. You can check for the Byte Order Mark (EF BB BF in UTF-8) but, I rarely see the BOM on UTF-8 strings. Instead I apply a quick and dirty UTF-8 test that takes advantage of the well-formed UTF-8 restrictions.
Unlike other multibyte character encoding forms (see Windows supported character sets or IANA's list of character sets), for example Big5, where sticking together any two bytes is more likely than not to give a valid byte sequence, UTF-8 is more restrictive. And unlike other multibyte character encodings, UTF-8 bytes may be taken out of context and one can still know that its a single byte character, the starting byte of a three byte sequence, etc.
The full rules for well-formed UTF-8 are a little too complicated for me to commit to memory. Instead I've got my own simpler (this is the quick part) set of rules that will be mostly correct (this is the dirty part). For as many bytes in the string as you care to examine, check the most significant digit of the byte:
Code Points | 1st Byte | 2nd Byte | 3rd Byte | 4th Byte |
---|---|---|---|---|
U+0000..U+007F | 00..7F | |||
U+0080..U+07FF | C2..DF | 80..BF | ||
U+0800..U+0FFF | E0 | A0..BF | 80..BF | |
U+1000..U+CFFF | E1..EC | 80..BF | 80..BF | |
U+D000..U+D7FF | ED | 80..9F | 80..BF | |
U+E000..U+FFFF | EE..EF | 80..BF | 80..BF | |
U+10000..U+3FFFF | F0 | 90..BF | 80..BF | 80..BF |
U+40000..U+FFFFF | F1..F3 | 80..BF | 80..BF | 80..BF |
U+100000..U+10FFFF | F4 | 80..8F | 80..BF | 80..BF |