Author: jwokelly

Despite being so well understood, SQL Injection remains one of the most common vulnerabilities in web applications.

What is SQL Injection

Any SQL which is dynamically created has the potential for having malicious SQL injected into it. For example, the below code receives a querystring and adds it to a SQL select string which will then be executed against the database.

//Querystring for example could be ?userid=1
var inputStr = Request.QueryString("userid"); 

var sqlQuery = "select createDate from users where userid = '" + inputStr  + "'";
//sqlQuery is 'select createDate from users where userid = '1'

All the attacker has to do is append sql to the querystring for it to execute. Thus adding 1; delete from users;-- will cause the sql statement to be select createDate from users where userid = '1'; delete from users;-- and two statements will be executed by the database. The first statement returns the createDate for the ‘jude’ user, the malicious second statement deletes all records from the database. Note that no statements added to the sqlQuery will be executed since they are commented out using the — characters.

There are a multitude of variations on these basic scenarios, as well as executing operations on the database, attackers can retrieve sensitive data by displaying it on the site which does not require execute permissions on the database. Take for example a search box on a site which places the search term in the querystring which is then used to form the SQL query as below :

var searchTerm = Request.QueryString("searchterm");
var sqlQuery = "select * from articles where article.title like '%" + "%'";

The sql is then executed against the database and the search results are output to the webpage.
A malicious user can inject sql into the search term and return a listing of table names in the database using the below ‘search’ term:

' union select name from sysobjects where type = 'u' --

Once armed with the table name listing, the attacker can target a table to return the column names using the below term:

' union select * from information_schema.columns where table name = 'users' --

Then it is just a straightforward select statement to return the sensitive data:

' union select socialsecuritynumber from users --

There are a large number of sources of SQL Injection, as noted above querystrings and form values are common sources of injection, but cookies and Http Headers are also potential sources. Http header values in particular are commonly stored in the database, for example logging the referring url is common practice on many sites:

var referringUrl = ServerVariables("HTTP_REFERER")
var insertReferralSql = "insert into trafficreferrals   values ('" + referringUrl + "')"

The Http Post can easily be tampered with using a tool such as Fiddler and malicious code entered in the Referrer field in the header. Note in this particular instance, the .NET framework provides the Request.UrlReferrer property which will pass back a valid Uri and should be clear from injected code.

Problematic Fix – Manually Cleaning Strings

Before looking at robust defenses against SQL injection it is worth looking at ad-hoc protections which are often ineffective and should not be used.

Writing custom code to ‘clean’ the input string of dangerous characters is effective in theory but needs to be done with extreme rigour and many solutions can very easily be bypassed.

For example, the potentially hazardous ‘ and – – characters can be removed as below :

var inputStr = Request.QueryString("userid"); 
var cleanStr = inputStr.Replace("--", "") 
                       .Replace("'", "");

This may also be performed on SQL Server using the TSQL REPLACE function:

...
set @input = REPLACE(@input, '--', '')
select @input
set @input = REPLACE(@input, '--', '')
select @input
...

In this example the cleanStr may be consider safe of the ‘ and – – sequences. However this is not the case. Consider the below input string:

; delete from orders -'-

Note the -‘- sequence, in this case the ‘ character will be removed after the – – characters are tested for and the — character sequence will then be created leaving the below string:

; delete from orders -'-

The ‘ and – characters are not always necessary for attacks. Consider the first example we looked at

var inputStr = Request.QueryString("userid"); 
var sqlQuery = "select createDate from users where userid = " + inputStr

In this case the below SQL could be injected without the ‘ and – characters :

19; delete from users;

If the database has SET QUOTED-IDENTIFIER OFF then attacker could simply replace the ‘ character with ” .

Defenses Against SQL Injection

Ensure Correct DataTypes Are Input
In many of the above scenarios an integer was expected and the attacker passed in an SQL string instead.
In the application we can test the input is in the correct format :

int orderId = int.Parse(Request.QueryString["OrderId"]);

//The below code can be problematic when users have different date formats
//Consider also DateTime.TryParse
DateTime orderDate = DateTime.Parse(Request.QueryString["orderDate"]);

This ensures that strings are not input when integers, date formats and other datatypes are expected. This step is sometimes seen as unnecessary overhead when parameterised queries are used but it is does provide additional protection.

Parameterised Queries
Parameterised queries are a primary defense against SQL injection. The below stored procedure uses a parameter on the where clause which will prevent malicious code being injected.

CREATE PROCEDURE GetUserJoinDate 
    @UserName nvarchar(50) 
AS 
    SELECT JoinDate
    FROM Users
    WHERE UserName = @UserName 
GO

Parameters are not always effective however, and building dynamic SQL using string concatenation can introduce http://armodexperiment.com/ vulnerabilities. The below stored procedure performs the same operation by using dynamic SQL.

CREATE PROCEDURE GetUserJoinDate(@UserName nvarchar(45))  

 AS
  DECLARE @sql nvarchar(255)
  SET @sql = 'SELECT JoinDate FROM Users WHERE UserName = ' + @UserName + '
  EXECUTE sp_executesql @sql
GO

In this case the below SQL passed in as the UserName parameter will execute malicious SQL on the database:

'; delete from users --

This is a very simplistic sample and is an unusual use of dynamic SQL, dynamic SQL is more commonly used in other scenarios where the developer may believe it is the only option. For example SQL is often passed in to build such as sorting where parameters

CREATE PROCEDURE GetUsers 
    @Sort nvarchar(50) 
AS
  DECLARE @sql nvarchar(255)
  SET @sql = 'SELECT UserName FROM Users   ' + @Sort 
  EXECUTE sp_executesql @sql
GO

This allows partial sql to be passed in for sorting:

exec @Sort = 'order by UserName ASC'

This stored procedure could be purged of dynamic SQL and written as below:

CREATE PROCEDURE GetUsers 
    @Sort int = 1 
AS
   SELECT UserName FROM Users
   ORDER BY CASE
     WHEN @Sort = 1 THEN ( Rank() OVER (ORDER BY UserName ASC) )
     WHEN @Sort = 2 THEN ( Rank() OVER (ORDER BY UserName DESC) )
     WHEN @Sort = 3 THEN ( Rank() OVER (ORDER BY CreateDate ASC) )
GO

There are numerous scenarios such as this where dynamic SQL can be removed. If dymanic SQL is absolutely necessary then string concatenation should be avoided and parameters placed within the SQL which will will ensure that the parameter is properly escaped:

CREATE PROCEDURE GetUserJoinDate 
  @UserName nvarchar(45)
AS
  DECLARE @sql nvarchar(255)
  SET @sql = N'SELECT JoinDate FROM Users WHERE UserName=@UserName'
  EXECUTE sp_executesql @sql
GO

These examples have focused on stored procedures on the database, but this applies equally to SQL created in the application :

//Vulnerable
SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(connectionString);
SqlCommand command = new SqlCommand("SELECT JoinDate FROM Users 
                                     WHERE UserName='" + userName + "'", conn);

//Secure SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(connectionString); SqlCommand command = new SqlCommand(“SELECT JoinDate FROM Users WHERE UserName=@UserName”, conn); command.Parameters.Add(new SqlParameter(“UserName”, userName);

Permissions

The database is only vulnerable to SQL injection to the extent of the user’s permissions on the SQL Server database. It is thus essential to audit and limit the permissions on the database, a detailed discussed of permissions is beyond the scope of this article but a good starting point for auditing SQL Server permissions is Auditing SQL Server Permissions

IIS Global Filtering
As an additional defense for querystring injection, IIS can filter requests for dangerous keywords. This can be done globally using the applicationhost.config (located at %systemroot%system32inetsrvconfigapplicationhost.config ). Under the tag add your rules as below:

 <filteringRules> 
    <filteringRule name="SQLInjection" scanQueryString="true"> 
        <appliesTo> 
            <add fileExtension=".asp" /> 
            <add fileExtension=".aspx" /> 
        </appliesTo> 
        <denyStrings> 
            <add string="--" /> 
            <add string=";" /> 
            <add string="/*" /> 
            <add string="@" /> 
            <add string="char" /> 
            <add string="alter" /> 
            <add string="begin" /> 
            <add string="cast" /> 
            <add string="create" /> 
            <add string="cursor" /> 
            <add string="declare" /> 
            <add string="delete" /> 
            <add string="drop" /> 
            <add string="end" /> 
            <add string="exec" /> 
            <add string="fetch" /> 
            <add string="insert" /> 
            <add string="kill" /> 
            <add string="open" /> 
            <add string="select" /> 
            <add string="sys" /> 
            <add string="table" /> 
            <add string="update" /> 
        </denyStrings> 
    </filteringRule> 
</filteringRules>

/* Courtesy Wade Hilmo */

This will deny requests with these keywords in the querystring.

Leave ValidateRequest On
ValidateRequest is inbuilt in ASP.NET and throws an error whenever a page is submitted with potentially malicious content. However, ValidateRequest is very aggressive and out of frustration developers frequently resort to turning it off in across the entire application. Instead, it can be selectively disabled for controls, pages in ASP.NET and for controllers in ASP.NET MVC (using [ValidateInput(false)] ). This gives more granular control over where there are potential exposures to SQL injection.

Consider Using an ORM
Object Relation Mappers such as Entity Framework or Nhibernate take control of the SQL generation and execution and generally do an excellent job of protecting against SQL Injection.

This question about selecting data using Entity Framework on StackOverflow got me thinking that a lot of LINQ to Entities code samples show very little consistency in how data is selected. Find(), Single(), SingleOrDefault(), First(), and FirstOrDefault() are often used interchangeably.

The first issue to address is using Where() in the data selection statement. Where() should only be used when several entities are required. There is no advantage in using Where() as below :

var db = new MyDBContext();
var employee = db.Employees.Where(x => x.ID == 1).Single();

This can be written as :

var employee = db.Employees.Single(x => x.ID == 1);

Note that there is a fundamental difference between using Where() in isolation and appending a standard LINQ operator such as Single() or ToList(). Where() and OrderBy() will return IQueryable and IOrderedQueryable objects respectively which contain core SQL Statements to be executed against the database but have not yet requested or received data from the database.
Appending Single(), First(), ToList() or similar will subsequently execute the query:

var emps = db.Where(x => x.Salary > 100000); // emps is an IQueryable() object, no database interaction yet
//.....
var highSalaryEmps = emps.ToList() //database query executed and an IEnumerable() returned as highSalaryEmps

This can have both performance and data integrity implications. In the above example, data is only read from the database when ToList() is called, intervening update/add operations will be reflected in the highSalaryEmps object which may not be the intended outcome.

Welcome to OnlinePhentermine.net

In terms of performance, the primary issue to be aware of is using filtering operations after executing a large database query. For example :

var emps = db.Employees.ToList();
var highestSalaryEmp = emps.OrderBy(x => x.Salary).Single();

This will first return all employees from the database and then performance an order and selection. Far better to just query the database using these criteria :

var highestSalaryEmp = db.Employees.OrderBy(x => x.Salary).Single();

Find()

Find() is set apart from other element operations in LINQ-To-Entities in that it will first query the in-memory entities that EF is tracking and only hit the database in the event that none is found. Thus it can have superior performance and should always be used where possible – especially in lengthy operations when the entity is likely to already be in memory. Find() is unfortunately not very flexible and can only be used to look up an entity by its Primary Key :

var emp = db.Employees.Find(empId);

Note that you can use the Local property on a DbSet to access the in-memory data if you require more advanced logic :

var emp = db.Employees.Local.SingleOrDefault(x => x.Name = "Jude")
        ?? db.Employees.SingleOrDefault(x => x.Name = "Jude");

Note the use of the null coalescor  (??) above which tests if the first statement evaluates to null and if so then proceeds to execute the second statement. Thus EF will first test if there is a match in-memory and only if no match is found will then hit the database.

Single or First

A lot of EF code samples contain First() when it is clearly not optimal. First() is often used interchangeably with Single() although they are quite different. Single mandates that one and only one entity can be returned, if two matching records are found in the database an error will be thrown. First() is only concerned with returning the first record and performs no check to determine if there are multiple matching records.
Thus Single performs a data integrity test. In many scenarios there should only but one matching record in the database, and so Single will ensure this – although this will necessitate addition error trapping logic since Single will throw errors is more than one match is found. Under the covers, Single does this by using ‘SELECT TOP (2)’ for its queries and then EF inspects the returned records and throws an error if two records are returned. First by contrast simply queries using  ‘SELECT TOP (1)’.

As a side note, using .Take(1) instead of .First() has no difference in the SQL used to query the database, but Take() returns an IQueryable object and not an entity as with First() so the above discussed issues will be relevant.

OrDefault()

SingleOrDefault() or FirstOrDefault() should only be used when it is not known if the entity has already been persisted to the database. Thus SingleOrDefault() will query the database for the entity and return null if no entities are found (note that an error will still be thrown if more than one match is found). A typical pattern is querying and returning an entity if it exists or creating and adding it if there is no matching entity. In such a scenario the ?? null coalescor introduced above can be very useful.
Take a scenario where users can create Tags for Articles, if the Tag exists it shouldnt be returned as an entity but it needs to be created if it does not yet exist:

var tag = db.Tags.SingleOrDefault(x => x.TagName ="EntityFramework") ??
new Tag { TagName ="EntityFramework", CreateDate = DateTime.UtcNow };

article.Tag = tag;
db.SaveChanges(); //Note the new tag will not be persisted to the database until SaveChanges is called.

Never trust data submitted from a web page is a core security concept for web development. When using an MVC framework, this statement takes on added relevance. MVC frameworks rely heavily on binding querystrings, route values and form values to in-code objects.

Take for example the scenario where an authenticated user needs to update their profile. A common pattern in MVC would be to first load the the user in a controller and pass the user object to a View which renders the html to be sent to the browser:

[Authorize]
ActionResult UserDetails(int userId)
{
   var user = respository.GetUser(userId); 
   return View(user);
}

Another controller will then receive the Http Post from the update page and process the update:

[HttpPost]
[Authorize]
ActionResult UserDetails(User user)
{
   respository.UpdateUser(user);
   return View(user);
}

This works seamlessly, and developers are often comforted by the [Authorize] attribute which mandates that the user must first have logged in to the service and been authenticated to access the update page.

The vulnerability here is that when the page is sent to the user the html will contain the userid (typically in a hidden field), this forms part of the Http Post sent back to the server and is used as the primary key to determine which record to update. Using a tool such as Fiddler it is trivial to change this userid to any value and hence update any user record (attackers will often change a userid to 1 which is usually an admin account).

Accepting Data From a Trusted Source

The first defense against parameter tampering to only accept data from a trusted source where possible. In the above scenario, this could mean only accepting the data from the ASP.NET Membership provider:

[HttpPost]
[Authorize]
ActionResult UserDetails(User user)
   {
	 //Test is submitted user.Name is the same as the current logged in user
     if(user.Name == User.Identity.Name)
		{
   			respository.UpdateUser(user);
   			return View(user); 
		}
		else
		{
			//error
		}
     }

Encrypting and Decrypting Key Values

A more generalised solution is to pass down an encrypted value to the webpage and then decrypt and test this against the key value on the Http Post. Take for example an orderId which is used to update and order details (such as the address the order is to be sent to).

First, in the controller we can create an encrypted value of the key orderId field using the MachineKey API:

ActionResult OrderDetails(int orderId)
{
   var order = respository.GetOrder(orderId); 

     var orderidBytes = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(orderId);
     var encryptedOrderId =  MachineKey.Encode(plaintextBytes, MachineKeyProtection.All);
     ViewBag.OrderIdEncrypt = encryptedOrderId;


   return View(order);
}

In the Razor view, simply add the ViewBag.OrderIdEncrypt in a hidden field within the form:

...
@Html.Hidden("OrderIdEncrypt", ViewBag.OrderIdEncrypt)
...

Now when the form is posted back there will be a OrderIdEncrypt value on the form. This can then be decrypted with the MachineKey API and compared to the submitted value of OrderId:

[HttpPost]
[Authorize]
ActionResult OrderDetails(Order order, string orderIdEncrypt)
{
   var decryptedOrderIdBytes = MachineKey.Decode(encryptedValue, MachineKeyProtection.All);
   var unEncryptedOrderId =  Encoding.UTF8.GetString(decryptedBytes);
    
   if(unEncryptedOrderId == order.Id)
    { 
       respository.UpdateOrder(order);
       return View(order);
    }
   else
    {
       //test failed - send error message
    }

}

This solution could of course be cleaned up a lot – an enhancement would be firstly to have an computed field on the Order model which returns an encrypted value of the orderId and a helper method IsOrderIdValid which would compare an encrypted orderId value to a plain text orderId. This would clean up the solution and minimise the amount of logic in the controller.

In addition to tampering with existing values in a form, MVC frameworks are also vulnerable to adding additional parameters which are then bound to objects. This is commonly referred to as a Mass Assignment vulnerability and will be dealt with in my next article article.