CVE-2014-1418

CVE: CVE-2014-1418
CWE: 345
ipc:
  note: |
    This vulnerability was about caches in HTTP requests and responses, which
    would be categorized as inter-process communication.
  answer: true
  question: |
    Did the feature that this vulnerability affected use inter-process
    communication? IPC includes OS signals, pipes, stdin/stdout, message
    passing, and clipboard. Writing to files that another program in this
    software system reads is another form of IPC.

    Answer should be boolean.
CVSS: AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:N
bugs: []
i18n:
  note: |
    This vulnerability did not really have anything to do with internationalization,
    it was just about dealing with potential issues associated with older versions
    of IE.
  answer: false
  question: |
    Was the feature impacted by this vulnerability about internationalization
    (i18n)? An internationalization feature is one that enables people from all
    over the world to use the system. This includes translations, locales,
    typography, unicode, or various other features.

    Answer should be boolean. Write a note about how you came to the conclusions
    you did.
repo: 
vccs:
- note: |
    Adds code to strip off the Content-Disposition and Vary headers if the
    browser is IE.
  commit: 8975bba742151a6a3164d5c7df7d793f12a7c5c1
fixes:
- note: |
    Security fix for Django version 1.4 that stops the removing of the
    Content-Disposition and Vary headers.
  commit: 28e23306aa53bbbb8fb87db85f99d970b051026c
- note: |
    Security fix for Django version 1.5 that stops the removing of the
    Content-Disposition and Vary headers.
  commit: 4001ec8698f577b973c5a540801d8a0bbea1205b
- note: |
    Security fix for Django version 1.6 that stops the removing of the
    Content-Disposition and Vary headers.
  commit: 1abcf3a808b35abae5d425ed4d44cb6e886dc769
- note: |
    Security fix for Django version 1.7 that stops the removing of the
    Content-Disposition and Vary headers.
  commit: 7fef18ba9e5a8b47bc24b5bb259c8bf3d3879f2a
bounty:
  amt: 
  url: 
  announced: 
lessons:
  yagni:
    note: 
    applies: 
  question: |
    Are there any common lessons we have learned from class that apply to this
    vulnerability? In other words, could this vulnerability serve as an example
    of one of those lessons?

    Leave "applies" blank or put false if you did not see that lesson (you do
    not need to put a reason). Put "true" if you feel the lesson applies and put
    a quick explanation of how it applies.

    Don't feel the need to claim that ALL of these apply, but it's pretty likely
    that one or two of them apply.

    If you think of another lesson we covered in class that applies here, feel
    free to give it a small name and add one in the same format as these.
  serial_killer:
    note: 
    applies: 
  complex_inputs:
    note: 
    applies: 
  distrust_input:
    note: 
    applies: 
  least_privilege:
    note: |
      This vulnerability creates a scenerio where the cache for a session can
      be served to a user in a different session or not in a session at all. This
      would allow someone to have too many privileges and access/modify another
      user's cache.
    applies: true
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: 
  defense_in_depth:
    note: 
    applies: 
  secure_by_default:
    note: 
    applies: 
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: 
reviews: []
sandbox: 
upvotes: 4
CWE_note: |
  This vulnerability involves removing the header that ensures that cached data
  is only shown to users in the correct session. This is insufficiently verifying
  the data's authenticity.
mistakes:
  answer: |
    This vulnerability was created by a quick fix for which the potential
    ramifications weren't considered. It was something that was obscure and
    difficult to notice, but could cause a big issue. It went unnoticed for nearly
    6 years, but the conditions that allowed it to be exploited were rather rare,
    especially as time went on and less and less people used the older versions
    of IE that caused the issue. If there were unit tests written when the code
    was first added (instead of 3 years later), that might have helped. In addition,
    code reviews could have helped to idenify the issue, as someone else looking
    at the code could possibly have helped to idenity a potential vulnerability
    being introduced. However, even then this issue would be hard to spot so more
    robust testing would really be needed to catch this.
  question: |
    In your opinion, after all of this research, what mistakes were made that
    led to this vulnerability? Coding mistakes? Design mistakes?
    Maintainability? Requirements? Miscommunications?

    Look at the CWE entry for this vulnerability and examine the mitigations
    they have written there. Are they doing those? Does the fix look proper?

    Use those questions to inspire your answer. Don't feel obligated to answer
    every one. Write a thoughtful entry here that those ing the software
    engineering industry would find interesting.
nickname: 
subsystem:
  name:
  - handlers
  - http
  answer: |
    The main methods were implemented in http/utils.py, and it was used in
    core/handlers/base.py where http handlers are implemented. Therefore, this
    mistake happens in both of these subsystems.
  question: |
    What subsystems was the mistake in?

    Most systems don't have a formal list of their subsystems, but you can
    usually infer them from path names, bug report tags, or other key words
    used. A single source file is not what we mean by a subsystem. In Django,
    the "Component" field on the bug report is useful. But there may be other
    subsystems involved.

    Your subsystem name(s) should not have any dots or slashes in them. Only
    alphanumerics, whitespace, _, - and @.Feel free to add multiple using a YAML
    array.

    In the answer field, explain where you saw these words.
    In the name field, a subsystem name (or an array of names)

    e.g. clipboard, model, view, controller, mod_dav, ui, authentication
discovered:
  answer: |
    This vulnerability was discovered by Michael Nelson, Natalia Bidart and
    James Westby. They noticed that cached data could be served do a different
    session or to a user with no session at all.
  contest: false
  question: |
    How was this vulnerability discovered?

    Go to the bug report and read the conversation to find out how this was
    originally found. Answer in longform below in "answer", fill in the date in
    YYYY-MM-DD, and then determine if the vulnerability was found by a Google
    employee (you can tell from their email address). If it's clear that the
    vulenrability was discovered by a contest, fill in the name there.

    The automated, contest, and developer flags can be true, false, or nil.

    If there is no evidence as to how this vulnerability was found, then please explain where you looked.
  automated: false
  developer: false
description: |
  This vulnerability has to do with the way Django handles cached data from sessions.
  When using sessions, Django sets a specific header in responses that ensures that
  cached data from one session is not served to requests from other sessions.
  However, older versions of Interner Explorer could not handle this header with
  certain content types, so the header was removed.

  Removing this header created a potential vulnerability where the cache could
  serve data from a different session. This could lead to improper disclosure of
  data, or cache poisoning where an attacker floods the cache with malicious data
  that is then unknowingly served to a user.
unit_tested:
  fix: false
  code: true
  question: |
    Were automated unit tests involved in this vulnerability?
    Was the original code unit tested, or not unit tested? Did the fix involve
    improving the automated tests?

    For code: and fix: - your answer should be boolean.

    For the code_answer below, look not only at the fix but the surrounding
    code near the fix in related directories and determine if and was there were unit tests involved for this subsystem. The code

    For the fix_answer below, check if the fix for the vulnerability involves
    adding or improving an automated test to ensure this doesn't happen again.
  fix_answer: |
    Since the fix involved simply removing the code, the unit test was removed
    as well.
  code_answer: |
    The initial code involved adding functionality which was not initally tested.
    In a later bug fix commit, unit tests for this code were added, but they did
    not find the vulnerability.
discoverable: 
reported_date: '2014-05-14'
specification:
  answer: false
  answer_note: There is no mention of a violation of a specification.
  instructions: |
    Is there mention of a violation of a specification? For example,
    an RFC specification, a protocol specification, or a requirements
    specification.

    Be sure to check all artifacts for this: bug report, security
    advisory, commit message, etc.

    The answer field should be boolean. In answer_note, please explain
    why you come to that conclusion.
announced_date: 2014-05-16T15:55Z
curation_level: 1
published_date: '2014-05-16'
CWE_instructions: |
  Please go to http://cwe.mitre.org and find the most specific, appropriate CWE
  entry that describes your vulnerability. We recommend going to
  https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/699.html for the Software Development
  view of the vulnerabilities. We also recommend the tool
  http://www.cwevis.org/viz to help see how the classifications work.

  If you have anything to note about why you classified it this way, write
  something in CWE_note. This field is optional.

  Just the number here is fine. No need for name or CWE prefix. If more than one
  apply here, then choose the best one and mention the others in CWE_note.
yaml_instructions: |
  ===YAML Primer===
  This is a dictionary data structure, akin to JSON.
  Everything before a colon is a key, and the values here are usually strings
  For one-line strings, you can just use quotes after the colon
  For multi-line strings, as we do for our instructions, you put a | and then
  indent by two spaces

  For readability, we hard-wrap multi-line strings at 80 characters. This is
  not absolutely required, but appreciated.
bounty_instructions: |
  If you came across any indications that a bounty was paid out for this
  vulnerability, fill it out here. Or correct it if the information already here
  was wrong. Otherwise, leave it blank.
interesting_commits:
  commits:
  - note: |
      This commit fixes a bug associated with the initial VCC where it would
      crash if the response did not contain the Content-Type header. This fix
      directly changes code in the original VCC, and also adds a unit test to
      test its functionality. This is interesting since even though a developer
      was directly looking back at the functionality in this method and adding
      testing for it, they still did not notice the potential vulnerability
      associated with it.
    commit: affca1369c85116022e42d34f8deae245ce654cd
  question: |
    Are there any interesting commits between your VCC(s) and fix(es)?

    Write a brief (under 100 words) description of why you think this commit was
    interesting in light of the lessons learned from this vulnerability. Any
    emerging themes?
curated_instructions: |
  If you are manually editing this file, then you are "curating" it.

  Set the version number that you were given in your instructions.

  This will enable additional editorial checks on this file to make sure you
  fill everything out properly. If you are a student, we cannot accept your work
  as finished unless curated is properly updated.
upvotes_instructions: |
  For the first round, ignore this upvotes number.

  For the second round of reviewing, you will be giving a certain amount of
  upvotes to each vulnerability you see. Your peers will tell you how
  interesting they think this vulnerability is, and you'll add that to the
  upvotes score on your branch.
nickname_instructions: |
  A catchy name for this vulnerability that would draw attention it. If the
  report mentions a nickname, use that. Must be under 30 characters.
  Optional.
reported_instructions: |
  What date was the vulnerability reported to the security team? Look at the
  security bulletins and bug reports. It is not necessarily the same day that the
  CVE was created.  Leave blank if no date is given.
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
announced_instructions: |
  Was there a date that this vulnerability was announced to the world? You can
  find this in changelogs, blogs, bug reports, or perhaps the CVE date. A good
  source for this is Chrome's Stable Release Channel
  (https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/).
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
fixes_vcc_instructions: |
  Please put the commit hash in "commit" below (see my example in
  CVE-2011-3092.yml). Fixes and VCCs follow the same format.
published_instructions: |
  Is there a published fix or patch date for this vulnerability?
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
description_instructions: |
  You can get an initial description from the CVE entry on cve.mitre.org. These
  descriptions are a fine start, but they can be kind of jargony.

  Rewrite this description IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Make it interesting and easy to
  read to anyone with some programming experience. We can always pull up the NVD
  description later to get more technical.

  Try to still be specific in your description, but remove project-specific
  stuff. Remove references to versions, specific filenames, and other jargon
  that outsiders to this project would not understand. Technology like "regular
  expressions" is fine, and security phrases like "invalid write" are fine to
  keep too.

  Your target audience is people just like you before you took any course in
  security