CWE-434: Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type (Base)

Description: The product allows the attacker to upload or transfer files of dangerous types that can be automatically processed within the product's environment.



Alternate Terms: ::TERM:Unrestricted File Upload:DESCRIPTION:Used in vulnerability databases and elsewhere, but it is insufficiently precise. The phrase could be interpreted as the lack of restrictions on the size or number of uploaded files, which is a resource consumption issue.::

Applicable Platforms: ::LANGUAGE NAME:ASP.NET:LANGUAGE PREVALENCE:Sometimes::LANGUAGE NAME:PHP:LANGUAGE PREVALENCE:Often::LANGUAGE CLASS:Not Language-Specific:LANGUAGE PREVALENCE:Undetermined::TECHNOLOGY NAME:Web Server:TECHNOLOGY PREVALENCE:Sometimes::

Modes of Introduction: ::PHASE:Implementation::PHASE:Architecture and Design:NOTE:OMISSION: This weakness is caused by missing a security tactic during the architecture and design phase.::



Common Consequences: ::SCOPE:Integrity:SCOPE:Confidentiality:SCOPE:Availability:IMPACT:Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands:NOTE:Arbitrary code execution is possible if an uploaded file is interpreted and executed as code by the recipient. This is especially true for .asp and .php extensions uploaded to web servers because these file types are often treated as automatically executable, even when file system permissions do not specify execution. For example, in Unix environments, programs typically cannot run unless the execute bit is set, but PHP programs may be executed by the web server without directly invoking them on the operating system.::

Detection Methods: ::METHOD:Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation:DESCRIPTION:According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Web Application Scanner Web Services Scanner Database Scanners:EFFECTIVENESS:SOAR Partial::METHOD:Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation:DESCRIPTION:According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer:EFFECTIVENESS:SOAR Partial::METHOD:Manual Static Analysis - Source Code:DESCRIPTION:According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source Manual Source Code Review (not inspections):EFFECTIVENESS:High::METHOD:Automated Static Analysis - Source Code:DESCRIPTION:According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Source code Weakness Analyzer Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer:EFFECTIVENESS:High::METHOD:Architecture or Design Review:DESCRIPTION:According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction Cost effective for partial coverage: Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.):EFFECTIVENESS:High::

Potential Mitigations: ::PHASE:Architecture and Design:DESCRIPTION:Generate a new, unique filename for an uploaded file instead of using the user-supplied filename, so that no external input is used at all.[REF-422] [REF-423]::PHASE:Architecture and Design:STRATEGY:Enforcement by Conversion:DESCRIPTION:When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.::PHASE:Architecture and Design:DESCRIPTION:Consider storing the uploaded files outside of the web document root entirely. Then, use other mechanisms to deliver the files dynamically. [REF-423]::PHASE:Implementation:STRATEGY:Input Validation:DESCRIPTION:Assume all input is malicious. Use an accept known good input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, boat may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as red or blue. Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. For example, limiting filenames to alphanumeric characters can help to restrict the introduction of unintended file extensions.::PHASE:Architecture and Design:DESCRIPTION:Define a very limited set of allowable extensions and only generate filenames that end in these extensions. Consider the possibility of XSS (CWE-79) before allowing .html or .htm file types.::PHASE:Implementation:STRATEGY:Input Validation:DESCRIPTION:Ensure that only one extension is used in the filename. Some web servers, including some versions of Apache, may process files based on inner extensions so that filename.php.gif is fed to the PHP interpreter.[REF-422] [REF-423]::PHASE:Implementation:DESCRIPTION:When running on a web server that supports case-insensitive filenames, perform case-insensitive evaluations of the extensions that are provided.::PHASE:Architecture and Design:DESCRIPTION:For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.::PHASE:Implementation:DESCRIPTION:Do not rely exclusively on sanity checks of file contents to ensure that the file is of the expected type and size. It may be possible for an attacker to hide code in some file segments that will still be executed by the server. For example, GIF images may contain a free-form comments field.::PHASE:Implementation:DESCRIPTION:Do not rely exclusively on the MIME content type or filename attribute when determining how to render a file. Validating the MIME content type and ensuring that it matches the extension is only a partial solution.::PHASE:Architecture and Design Operation:STRATEGY:Environment Hardening:DESCRIPTION:Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.::PHASE:Architecture and Design Operation:STRATEGY:Sandbox or Jail:DESCRIPTION:Run the code in a jail or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.:EFFECTIVENESS:Limited::

Observed Examples: ::REFERENCE:CVE-2023-5227:DESCRIPTION:PHP-based FAQ management app does not check the MIME type for uploaded images:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-5227::REFERENCE:CVE-2001-0901:DESCRIPTION:Web-based mail product stores .shtml attachments that could contain SSI:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2001-0901::REFERENCE:CVE-2002-1841:DESCRIPTION:PHP upload does not restrict file types:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2002-1841::REFERENCE:CVE-2005-1868:DESCRIPTION:upload and execution of .php file:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2005-1868::REFERENCE:CVE-2005-1881:DESCRIPTION:upload file with dangerous extension:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2005-1881::REFERENCE:CVE-2005-0254:DESCRIPTION:program does not restrict file types:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2005-0254::REFERENCE:CVE-2004-2262:DESCRIPTION:improper type checking of uploaded files:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2004-2262::REFERENCE:CVE-2006-4558:DESCRIPTION:Double php extension leaves an active php extension in the generated filename.:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2006-4558::REFERENCE:CVE-2006-6994:DESCRIPTION:ASP program allows upload of .asp files by bypassing client-side checks:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2006-6994::REFERENCE:CVE-2005-3288:DESCRIPTION:ASP file upload:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2005-3288::REFERENCE:CVE-2006-2428:DESCRIPTION:ASP file upload:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2006-2428::

Functional Areas: ::File Processing::

Affected Resources: ::File or Directory::

Notes: ::TYPE:Relationship:NOTE:This can have a chaining relationship with incomplete denylist / permissive allowlist errors when the product tries, but fails, to properly limit which types of files are allowed (CWE-183, CWE-184). This can also overlap multiple interpretation errors for intermediaries, e.g. anti-virus products that do not remove or quarantine attachments with certain file extensions that can be processed by client systems.::