SSRF - Detection, Exploitation, and Mitigation Techniques [Part 2]

In the previous section, we explored different techniques for detecting Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) based on the application's scenarios. Now, let's delve into the exploitation techniques associated with SSRF, which come into play once SSRF has been confirmed within the application. These techniques aim to assess the vulnerability's risk or impact. The SSRF exploitation process can be divided into two main parts.

Exploiting Application Internal infrastructure:

• Companies utilize various architectural patterns for running applications, including reverse proxies, load balancers, cache servers, and different routing methods. It is crucial to determine if an application is running on the same host. URL bypass techniques can be employed to invoke well-known URLs and Protocols like localhost (127.0.0.1) and observe the resulting responses. Malicious payloads can sometimes trigger error messages or responses that inadvertently expose internal IP addresses, providing valuable insights into the internal network.
• Another approach involves attempting connections to well-known ports on localhost or leaked IP addresses and analyzing the responses received on different ports.
• Application-specific information, such as the operating system, application server version, load balancer or reverse proxy software/platform, and vulnerable server-side library versions, can aid in targeting specific payloads for exploitation. It is also worthwhile to check if the application permits access to default sensitive files located in predefined locations. For example, on Windows systems, accessing critical files like win.ini, sysprep.inf, sysprep.xml, and NTLM hashes can be highly valuable. A comprehensive list of Windows files is available at https://github.com/soffensive/windowsblindread/blob/master/windows-files.txt. On Linux, an attacker may exfiltrate file:////etc/passwd hashes through SSRF.
• If the application server runs on Node.js, a protocol redirection attack can be attempted by redirecting from an attacker's HTTPS server endpoint to HTTP. For instance, using a URL like https://attackerserver.com/redirect.aspx?target=http://localhost/test.
• It is essential to identify all endpoints where the application responds with an 'access denied' (403) error. These URLs can then be used in SSRF to compare differences in responses.
• By identifying the platform or components used in an application, it becomes possible to exploit platform-specific vulnerabilities through SSRF. For example, if the application relies on WordPress, its admin or configuration internal URLs can be targeted. Platform-specific details can be found at https://github.com/assetnote/blind-ssrf-chains, which assists in exploiting Blind/Time-based SSRF.
• DNS Rebinding attack: This type of attack occurs when an attacker-controlled DNS server initially responds to a DNS query with a valid IP address with very low TTL value, but subsequently returns internal, local, or restricted IP addresses. The application may allow these restricted IP addresses in later requests while restricting them in the first request. DNS Rebinding attacks can be valuable when the application imposes domain/IP-level restrictions.
• Cloud metadata exploitation: Cloud metadata URLs operate on specific IP addresses and control the configuration of cloud infrastructures. These endpoints are typically accessible only from the local environment. If an application is hosted on a cloud infrastructure and is susceptible to SSRF, these endpoints can be exploited to gain access to the cloud machine.

Amazon (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/instancedata-data-retrieval.html)

• http://169.254.169.254/
• http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/
• http://169.254.169.254/latest/user-data
• http://169.254.169.254/latest/user-data/iam/security-credentials/<<role>>
• http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/<<role>>
• http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/ami-id
• http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/hostname
• http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/public-keys/0/openssh-key
• http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/public-keys/<<id>>/openssh-key

Google (https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/metadata/querying-metadata)

• http://169.254.169.254/computeMetadata/v1/
• http://metadata.google.internal/computeMetadata/v1/
• http://metadata/computeMetadata/v1/
• http://metadata.google.internal/computeMetadata/v1/instance/hostname
• http://metadata.google.internal/computeMetadata/v1/instance/id
• http://metadata.google.internal/computeMetadata/v1/project/project-id

Azure (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/instance-metadata-service?tabs=windows)    

• http://169.254.169.254/metadata/v1/maintenance 

 

Exploiting external network

• If an application makes backend API calls and an attacker is aware of the backend API domains, they can exploit SSRF to abuse the application by targeting those backend APIs. Since the application is already authenticated with the domain of the backend API, it provides an avenue for the attacker to manipulate the requests.
• Furthermore, an attacker can utilize a vulnerable application as a proxy to launch attacks on third-party servers. By leveraging SSRF, they can make requests to external servers through the compromised application, potentially bypassing security measures in place.
• SSRF can be combined with other vulnerabilities such as XSS (Cross-Site Scripting), XXE (XML External Entity), Open redirect, and Request Smuggling to amplify the impact and severity of the overall vulnerability. This combination of vulnerabilities can lead to more advanced attacks and potentially result in unauthorized access, data leakage, or server-side compromise.

In the next section of this blog, we will delve into various strategies and techniques for preventing and mitigating SSRF attacks in different application scenarios.

Article by Amish Shah

SSRF - Detection, Exploitation, and Mitigation Techniques [Part 1]

SSRF (Server Side Request Forgery) is a security vulnerability that allows an attacker to make unauthorized HTTP requests from the backend of a vulnerable web application by manipulating the URL/domain/path parameter of the request. The injected URL can come from either an internal network or a third-party network, and the attacker's goal is usually to gain unauthorized access to internal applications or leak sensitive data.

SSRF attacks can have serious consequences, such as unauthorized actions on third-party applications and remote command execution on vulnerable internal applications. Additionally, attackers can use SSRF to bypass network security measures such as firewalls and gain access to sensitive resources.

Detection techniques for pen-testing with different types of application scenarios

One of the most commonly used methods to detect SSRF vulnerabilities is to set up a dedicated server that can receive both DNS and HTTP requests. The idea is to identify requests made by the user-agent or originating from the IP address of the vulnerable application server. If the server receives a request from the application, it indicates that there might be an SSRF vulnerability present. This method can help in identifying SSRF attacks in real-time and is used extensively by security professionals and researchers. 

Another method of detecting SSRF attacks is based on response timing. In such cases, the attacker learns whether or not a specific resource exists based on the time it takes to receive a response. If the response time is significantly different from what is expected, it may indicate that the attacker is trying to access a resource that does not exist or is not accessible.

URL/domain/path as a part query string or request body - One common scenario where SSRF can occur is when an application takes any URL, domain name, or file path as an input as part of the query string or request body, and the values of these parameters are used in backend processing. SSRF  can happen when an attacker is able to control the input parameters and can inject malicious URL/domain/path. For instance, an attacker could use an image URL or a link URL as input in template generation, or use a file/directory path or an image URL in system/device configuration. In such cases, the attacker could trick the application into sending requests to internal resources or third-party services without the application's knowledge. The most common consequence of such attacks is unauthorized access to sensitive data or resources.

The Referrer header - This header can be manipulated by an attacker to exploit an SSRF vulnerability. If the application uses the referrer header for business logic or analytics purposes, the attacker can modify it to point to a target server they control. The vulnerable application will then make requests to the internal network, allowing them to potentially gain access to internal resources. This can also lead to data exfiltration or unauthorized actions on third-party applications.

PDF Rendering/Preview Functionality - If the application provides the ability to generate PDF files or preview their content based on user input data, there may be a risk of SSRF. This is because the application's code or libraries could render the user-supplied JavaScript content on the backend, potentially leading to SSRF vulnerabilities. Attackers could exploit this vulnerability by injecting a malicious URL or IP address in the PDF file or the preview content, resulting in unauthorized access to internal systems or sensitive data. Therefore, it's important for developers to thoroughly sanitize user input data and restrict access to internal resources to prevent SSRF attacks.

File uploads – If an application includes a file upload feature and the uploaded file is parsed or processed in any way, it may be vulnerable to SSRF attacks. This is because URLs or file paths embedded in uploaded files such as SVG, XML, or PDF files may be used to make unauthorized requests to external resources. Attackers can leverage this vulnerability to perform actions such as gaining unauthorized access to internal applications, leaking sensitive data, or executing commands on third-party applications through vulnerable application’s origin.

Bypassing Whitelisted Domain/URL/Path – An attacker can use various encoding mechanisms and supply malformed URL formats with binary characters for the localhost URL, including techniques like CIDR bypass, dot bypass, decimal/octal/hexadecimal bypass, and domain parser confusion, to evade an application's whitelisted URL/domain/file path configuration. This can allow the attacker to inject a malicious URL or domain name, potentially leading to an SSRF vulnerability.

Checking with different protocols/IP/Methods - An attacker may attempt to exploit an SSRF vulnerability by sending requests with different protocols (e.g. file, dict, sftp, gopher, LDAP, etc.), IP addresses, and HTTP methods (e.g. PUT, DELETE, etc.) to see if the application is vulnerable. For instance, an attacker may try to access internal resources using the file protocol, which can allow them to read files on the server or execute arbitrary code. Similarly, an attacker may try to access resources using less common protocols like dict or gopher, which are not typically used and may not be blocked by firewalls.

The upcoming section of the blog will delve deeper into the topic of SSRF exploitation in the context of cloud-based applications. We will also explore platform-oriented attacks on internal apps and examine various migration strategies to prevent SSRF attacks.

Article by Amish Shah