CVE-2014-7809

aka Insecure Token Generator

CVE: CVE-2014-7809
CWE: 342
bugs: []
vccs:
- note: Uses insecure random
  commit: 7a0a6d58016b244e9521442f1e9666521f5c61b9
- note: 
  commit: 
fixes:
- note: Uses secure random
  commit: 1f301038a751bf16e525607c3db513db835b2999
- note: 
  commit: 
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: 
    applies: 
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: 
  defense_in_depth:
    note: 
    applies: 
  secure_by_default:
    note: |
      This vulnerability was created due to a failure in being secure by default.
      If from the beginning, the developers prioritized security by default,
      this issue would have never been created, and tokens would have been generated
      with a crytographically secure random number generator from the start.
    applies: true
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: |
      This vulnerability is due to using a default Java random number generation
      method in place of a more secure option. This was likely due to a lack of understanding
      of the limitations of the default method and a lack of knowledge regarding better
      options in the beginning.
    applies: true
upvotes: 1
mistakes:
  answer: |
    I would classify this issue as a simple coding mistake. The developers
    likely went with a non-cryptographically secure random number generator
    out of habit or perhaps they just didn't realize the potential risk associated
    with using a normal pseudorandom number generator. I also think that the fix was
    proper, this was a simple issue and a simple fix was used.
  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 in the software
    engineering industry would find interesting.
nickname: Insecure Token Generator
reported: 
announced: '2014-12-08'
subsystem:
  name: util
  answer: 'This mistake was made in their web authentication subsystem, specifically
    /util/TokenHelper.java

    '
  question: |
    What subsystems was the mistake in?
    Look at the path of the source code files code that were fixed to get
    directory names. Look at comments in the code. Look at the bug reports how
    the bug report was tagged. Examples: "clipboard", "gpu", "ssl", "speech", "renderer"
discovered:
  date: 
  answer: "I was unable to locate much information regarding when this vulnerability
    was discovered.\nI searched security and developer blogs, and googled countless
    phrases to describe the \nvulnerability to see if I could find any more interesting
    data to help lead me to a better\nanswer. The fixing commit was a single line
    change, so I assume it was directed and not \ndiscovered by a developer during
    other tasking.\n"
  apache: 
  contest: 
  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 Apache
    employee (you can tell from their email address). If it's clear that the
    vulnerability was discovered by a contest, fill in the name there.
    The "automated" flag can be true, false, or nil.
    The "apache" flag can be true, false, or nil.
    If there is no evidence as to how this vulnerability was found, then you may
    leave the entries blank except for "answer". Write down where you looked in "answer".
  automated: 
description: |
  Due to an ineffective random number generator, observing a previous authentication
  token allows for attackers to predict the next authentication token to effectively
  bypass the cross-site request forgery protections.
unit_tested:
  fix: false
  code: false
  answer: "There were no unit tests that I could locate for this functionality. \nI
    suspect that the developers considered this to be of little importance\nas the
    fix simply involved changing the means of generating random numbers\nto be cryptographically
    secure.\n"
  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?
    Write the reasoning behind your answer in the "answer" field.
    For the "code" answer below, look not only at the fix but the surrounding
    code near the fix and determine if and was there were unit tests involved
    for this module. Must be just "true" or "false".
    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.
    Must be just "true" or "false".
future_fixes:
- note: 
  commit: 
curation_level: 1
previous_fixes:
- note: 
  commit: 
- note: 
  commit: 
CWE_instructions: |
  Please go to cwe.mitre.org and find the most specific, appropriate CWE entry
  that describes your vulnerability. (Tip: this may not be a good one to start
  with - spend time understanding this vulnerability before making your choice!)
security_bulletin: S2-023
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:
  answer: |
    There were no commits directly related to this issue between the VCC and FIX. It was almost
    a decade from when the issue was introduced and when it was fixed. However, during this time
    there were several commits that adjusted the file in question and the processing of tokens.
  commits:
  - note: Changes to the way that tokens were processed 2009-06-04
    commit: bc6d4bb804dd4b14c9b5562feee4464e3d1b5bff
  - note: refactor and code cleanup following a failed/reverted previous attempt
    commit: b95c8ae8383d43ef15788322f3a981808827f689
  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?
    If there are no interesting commits, demonstrate that you completed this section
    by explaining what happened between the VCCs and the fix.
curated_instructions: |
  If you are manually editing this file, then you are "curating" it. Set the
  entry below to "true" as soon as you start. This will enable additional
  integrity 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
  set to true.
upvotes_instructions: |
  Students: when initially writing this, ignore this upvotes number.
  Once this work is being reviewed, 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: |
  Nickname is optional. Provide a useful, professional, and catchy nickname for
  this vulnerability. Ideally fewer than 30 characters. This will be shown
  alongside its CVE to make it more easily distinguished from the rest.
reported_instructions: |
  Was there a date that this vulnerability was reported to the team? You can
  find this in changelogs, blogs, bug reports, or perhaps the CVE data.
  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 data.
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
fixes_vcc_instructions: |
  Please put the SVN commit number in "commit" below, and any notes about how this
  was discovered in the "note" field.
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 Struts-specific
  stuff. Remove references to versions, specific filenames, and other jargon
  that outsiders to Struts would not understand. Technology like "regular
  expressions" is fine, and security phrases like "invalid write" are fine to
  keep too.
incomplete_fix_instructions: "Did the above \"fixes\" actually fix the vulnerability?
  \nPlease list any fixes for the same issue before and after\nthis CVE below.\n"