Using Referer Field for Authentication |
Weakness ID: 293 (Weakness Variant) | Status: Draft |
Description Summary
referrer: | While the proper spelling might be regarded as "referrer," the HTTP RFCs and their implementations use "referer," so this is regarded as the correct spelling. |
---|
Scope | Effect |
---|---|
Authorization | Actions, which may not be authorized otherwise, can be carried out as if they were validated by the server referred to. |
Accountability | Actions may be taken in the name of the server referred to. |
Example 1
Phase: Architecture and Design In order to usefully check if a given action is authorized, some means of strong authentication and method protection must be used. Use other means of authorization that cannot be simply spoofed. Possibilities include a username/password or certificate. |
The referer field in HTML requests can be simply modified by malicious users, rendering it useless as a means of checking the validity of the request in question. |
Nature | Type | ID | Name | View(s) this relationship pertains to![]() |
---|---|---|---|---|
ChildOf | ![]() | 290 | Authentication Bypass by Spoofing | Development Concepts (primary)699 Research Concepts (primary)1000 |
PeerOf | ![]() | 291 | Trusting Self-reported IP Address | Research Concepts1000 |
PeerOf | ![]() | 292 | Trusting Self-reported DNS Name | Research Concepts1000 |
Mapped Taxonomy Name | Node ID | Fit | Mapped Node Name |
---|---|---|---|
CLASP | Using referrer field for authentication |
Submissions | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Submission Date | Submitter | Organization | Source | |
CLASP | Externally Mined | |||
Modifications | ||||
Modification Date | Modifier | Organization | Source | |
2008-09-08 | CWE Content Team | MITRE | Internal | |
updated Alternate Terms, Background Details, Common Consequences, Relationships, Relevant Properties, Taxonomy Mappings |