[WEB SECURITY] Web Service Security

Info Sec infosecm at gmail.com
Fri Nov 22 15:56:51 EST 2013


Hi all,

Thank you for your cooperation.

Your reply comes from your experience , which make it valuable.
What I see here. Is that most issue or concerns is similar to web
applications security issues (SQL Injectin, XSS ... etc)

I don't have much experience with web service, so I thought it may has its
own flaws.
Anyway, your comments and testing method were useful, and it is helpful to
establish the start.

Thank you everybody.



On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Gautam <gautam.edu at gmail.com> wrote:

> What I have done In the past was use the IBM appscan as a proxy for the
> soapui when they do the normal functional testing of the WS. In this step
> appscan is learning the normal behaviour so I don't have to send a traffic
> for learning.
>
> Once the learning is done you can then use appacan to scan.
>
> This way I got some more results than before.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Gautam
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 21, 2013, Mario Robles wrote:
>
>> I've found that chaining SoapUI with burp suite as it's proxy helps a lot
>> during WS testing
>>
>> IBM Appscan have a tool for testing WS as well
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mario
>>
>> El 20/11/2013, a las 05:26 p.m., Pawel Krawczyk <pawel.krawczyk at hush.com>
>> escribió:
>>
>> Fully subscribe to Brett’s comment.
>>
>> Web services are very sensitive to a specific standard and
>> implementation. One family is SOAP, which is multilayer protocol so even a
>> simple service looks very complex. This is why there are no
>> “point-and-click” SOAP security scanners - each scanner is actually a
>> client for specific service and needs to be implemented from scratch. If
>> you have WSDL, it’s quite easy. You can code it in Java, .NET, Python or
>> SoapUI. One of the commercial scanners also has a built-in SOAP client,
>> similar to SoapUI (I don’t remember which - IBM AppScan or HP WebInspect).
>>
>> At the end of the day you actually get a fuzzer and what you’re looking
>> for are all kind of standard issues - unhandled exceptions, error messages
>> etc. The good side is that SOAP programmes rarely sanitise their error
>> messages in a fully justified belief that no normal human will look at
>> these responses :)
>>
>> It’s more challenging if the service uses advanced features such as
>> digital signature or encryption, because as far as I’ve seen this domain
>> can be not fully standardised. If you get there, you’ll practically need to
>> reimplement the service’s client. And you might find out that there’s no
>> good library for that in your favourite programming language, or there’s no
>> library apart from one delivered by a vendor. Welcome to the murky world of
>> proprietary business protocols… For Java there’s a book that helped me a
>> lot with understanding the SOAP world  - “Building web services with Java” (
>> http://amzn.to/1auRwqA)
>>
>> A separate class of applications using web services are client-facing
>> apps with most of the presentation logic implemented in JavaScript (e.g.
>> AngularJS) and just pulling data from the server over AJAX or REST. I like
>> them because it’s easy to draw a trust boundary, the HTTP communications
>> are easy to read and the APIs are also rather simple and clear to
>> understand. Most of the manual testing tools such as BurpSuite will handle
>> them pretty well.
>>
>> Typical issues you’ll find in headless web services alone will be related
>> to SQL, broken authentication and access controls. In case of modern AJAX
>> apps, you’ll actually need to look at two sides: one is the web service,
>> the other is the presentation layer. DOM-based XSS is prevalent here, but
>> if you properly tested the API, you can be pretty confident that you’ll not
>> get a data breach as all data goes through the API. Which is also a
>> wonderful situation from secure coding perspective - e.g. in Spring (Java)
>> the API definitions can be stored in single place, which makes code review
>> and possible fixes much easier.
>>
>>
>> On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:56, Brett Knuth <brett.knuth at healthdirect.org.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  For what it’s worth ……
>>
>> We always take a risk based approach and map the possible threats to the
>> web app depending on its specific components
>> Build an attack tree or a threat table XLS, an example below
>>  *Injection*
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Gautam
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The Web Security Mailing List
>
> WebSecurity RSS Feed
> http://www.webappsec.org/rss/websecurity.rss
>
> Join WASC on LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/83336/4B20E4374DBA
>
> WASC on Twitter
> http://twitter.com/wascupdates
>
> websecurity at lists.webappsec.org
> http://lists.webappsec.org/mailman/listinfo/websecurity_lists.webappsec.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webappsec.org/pipermail/websecurity_lists.webappsec.org/attachments/20131122/dd6d735a/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the websecurity mailing list