User equals untrustworthy. Never trust untrustworthy user's input. I get that. However, I am wondering when the best time to sanitize input is. For example, do you blindly store user input and then sanitize it whenever it is accessed/used, or do you sanitize the input immediately and then store this "cleaned" version? Maybe there are also some other approaches I haven't though of in addition to these. I am leaning more towards the first method, because any data that came from user input must still be approached cautiously, where the "cleaned" data might still unknowingly or accidentally be dangerous. Either way, what method do people think is best, and for what reasons?
Unfortunately, almost no one of the participants ever clearly understands what are they talking about. Literally. Only Kibbee managed to make it straight.
This topic is all about sanitization. But the truth is, such a thing like wide-termed "general purpose sanitization" everyone is so eager to talk about is just doesn't exist.
There are a zillion different mediums, each require it's own, distinct data formatting. Moreover - even single certain medium require different formatting for it's parts. Say, HTML formatting is useless for javascript embedded in HTML page. Or, string formatting is useless for the numbers in SQL query.
As a matter of fact, such a "sanitization as early as possible", as suggested in most upvoted answers, is just impossible. As one just cannot tell in which certain medium or medium part the data will be used. Say, we are preparing to defend from "sql-injection", escaping everything that moves. But whoops! - some required fields weren't filled and we have to fill out data back into form instead of database... with all the slashes added.
On the other hand, we diligently escaped all the "user input"... but in the sql query we have no quotes around it, as it is a number or identifier. And no "sanitization" ever helped us.
On the third hand - okay, we did our best in sanitizing the terrible, untrustworthy and disdained "user input"... but in some inner process we used this very data without any formatting (as we did our best already!) - and whoops! have got second order injection in all its glory.
So, from the real life usage point of view, the only proper way would be
formatting, not whatever "sanitization"
right before use
according to the certain medium rules
and even following sub-rules required for this medium's different parts.
It depends on what kind of sanitizing you are doing.
For protecting against SQL injection, don't do anything to the data itself. Just use prepared statements, and that way, you don't have to worry about messing with the data that the user entered, and having it negatively affect your logic. You have to sanitize a little bit, to ensure that numbers are numbers, and dates are dates, since everything is a string as it comes from the request, but don't try to do any checking to do things like block keywords or anything.
For protecting against XSS attacks, it would probably be easier to fix the data before it's stored. However, as others mentioned, sometimes it's nice to have a pristine copy of exactly what the user entered, because once you change it, it's lost forever. It's almost too bad there's not a fool proof way to ensure you application only puts out sanitized HTML the way you can ensure you don't get caught by SQL injection by using prepared queries.
I sanitize my user data much like Radu...
First client-side using both regex's and taking control over allowable characters
input into given form fields using javascript or jQuery tied to events, such as
onChange or OnBlur, which removes any disallowed input before it can even be
submitted. Realize however, that this really only has the effect of letting those
users in the know, that the data is going to be checked server-side as well. It's
more a warning than any actual protection.
Second, and I rarely see this done these days anymore, that the first check being
done server-side is to check the location of where the form is being submitted from.
By only allowing form submission from a page that you have designated as a valid
location, you can kill the script BEFORE you have even read in any data. Granted,
that in itself is insufficient, as a good hacker with their own server can 'spoof'
both the domain and the IP address to make it appear to your script that it is coming
from a valid form location.
Next, and I shouldn't even have to say this, but always, and I mean ALWAYS, run
your scripts in taint mode. This forces you to not get lazy, and to be diligent about
step number 4.
Sanitize the user data as soon as possible using well-formed regexes appropriate to
the data that is expected from any given field on the form. Don't take shortcuts like
the infamous 'magic horn of the unicorn' to blow through your taint checks...
or you may as well just turn off taint checking in the first place for all the good
it will do for your security. That's like giving a psychopath a sharp knife, bearing
your throat, and saying 'You really won't hurt me with that will you".
And here is where I differ than most others in this fourth step, as I only sanitize
the user data that I am going to actually USE in a way that may present a security
risk, such as any system calls, assignments to other variables, or any writing to
store data. If I am only using the data input by a user to make a comparison to data
I have stored on the system myself (therefore knowing that data of my own is safe),
then I don't bother to sanitize the user data, as I am never going to us it a way
that presents itself as a security problem. For instance, take a username input as
an example. I use the username input by the user only to check it against a match in
my database, and if true, after that I use the data from the database to perform
all other functions I might call for it in the script, knowing it is safe, and never
use the users data again after that.
Last, is to filter out all the attempted auto-submits by robots these days, with a
'human authentication' system, such as Captcha. This is important enough these days
that I took the time to write my own 'human authentication' schema that uses photos
and an input for the 'human' to enter what they see in the picture. I did this because
I've found that Captcha type systems really annoy users (you can tell by their
squinted-up eyes from trying to decipher the distorted letters... usually over and
over again). This is especially important for scripts that use either SendMail or SMTP
for email, as these are favorites for your hungry spam-bots.
To wrap it up in a nutshell, I'll explain it as I do to my wife... your server is like a popular nightclub, and the more bouncers you have, the less trouble you are likely to have
in the nightclub. I have two bouncers outside the door (client-side validation and human authentication), one bouncer right inside the door (checking for valid form submission location... 'Is that really you on this ID'), and several more bouncers in
close proximity to the door (running taint mode and using good regexes to check the
user data).
I know this is an older post, but I felt it important enough for anyone that may read it after my visit here to realize their is no 'magic bullet' when it comes to security, and it takes all these working in conjuction with one another to make your user-provided data secure. Just using one or two of these methods alone is practically worthless, as their power only exists when they all team together.
Or in summary, as my Mum would often say... 'Better safe than sorry".
UPDATE:
One more thing I am doing these days, is Base64 encoding all my data, and then encrypting the Base64 data that will reside on my SQL Databases. It takes about a third more total bytes to store it this way, but the security benefits outweigh the extra size of the data in my opinion.
I like to sanitize it as early as possible, which means the sanitizing happens when the user tries to enter in invalid data. If there's a TextBox for their age, and they type in anything other that a number, I don't let the keypress for the letter go through.
Then, whatever is reading the data (often a server) I do a sanity check when I read in the data, just to make sure that nothing slips in due to a more determined user (such as hand-editing files, or even modifying packets!)
Edit: Overall, sanitize early and sanitize any time you've lost sight of the data for even a second (e.g. File Save -> File Open)
The most important thing is to always be consistent in when you escape. Accidental double sanitizing is lame and not sanitizing is dangerous.
For SQL, just make sure your database access library supports bind variables which automatically escapes values. Anyone who manually concatenates user input onto SQL strings should know better.
For HTML, I prefer to escape at the last possible moment. If you destroy user input, you can never get it back, and if they make a mistake they can edit and fix later. If you destroy their original input, it's gone forever.
Early is good, definitely before you try to parse it. Anything you're going to output later, or especially pass to other components (i.e., shell, SQL, etc) must be sanitized.
But don't go overboard - for instance, passwords are hashed before you store them (right?). Hash functions can accept arbitrary binary data. And you'll never print out a password (right?). So don't parse passwords - and don't sanitize them.
Also, make sure that you're doing the sanitizing from a trusted process - JavaScript/anything client-side is worse than useless security/integrity-wise. (It might provide a better user experience to fail early, though - just do it both places.)
My opinion is to sanitize user input as soon as posible client side and server side, i'm doing it like this
(client side), allow the user to
enter just specific keys in the field.
(client side), when user goes to the next field using onblur, test the input he entered
against a regexp, and notice the user if something is not good.
(server side), test the input again,
if field should be INTEGER check for that (in PHP you can use is_numeric() ),
if field has a well known format
check it against a regexp, all
others ( like text comments ), just
escape them. If anything is suspicious stop script execution and return a notice to the user that the data he enetered in invalid.
If something realy looks like a posible attack, the script send a mail and a SMS to me, so I can check and maibe prevent it as soon as posible, I just need to check the log where i'm loggin all user inputs, and the steps the script made before accepting the input or rejecting it.
Perl has a taint option which considers all user input "tainted" until it's been checked with a regular expression. Tainted data can be used and passed around, but it taints any data that it comes in contact with until untainted. For instance, if user input is appended to another string, the new string is also tainted. Basically, any expression that contains tainted values will output a tainted result.
Tainted data can be thrown around at will (tainting data as it goes), but as soon as it is used by a command that has effect on the outside world, the perl script fails. So if I use tainted data to create a file, construct a shell command, change working directory, etc, Perl will fail with a security error.
I'm not aware of another language that has something like "taint", but using it has been very eye opening. It's amazing how quickly tainted data gets spread around if you don't untaint it right away. Things that natural and normal for a programmer, like setting a variable based on user data or opening a file, seem dangerous and risky with tainting turned on. So the best strategy for getting things done is to untaint as soon as you get some data from the outside.
And I suspect that's the best way in other languages as well: validate user data right away so that bugs and security holes can't propagate too far. Also, it ought to be easier to audit code for security holes if the potential holes are in one place. And you can never predict which data will be used for what purpose later.
Clean the data before you store it. Generally you shouldn't be preforming ANY SQL actions without first cleaning up input. You don't want to subject yourself to a SQL injection attack.
I sort of follow these basic rules.
Only do modifying SQL actions, such as, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE through POST. Never GET.
Escape everything.
If you are expecting user input to be something make sure you check that it is that something. For example, you are requesting an number, then make sure it is a number. Use validations.
Use filters. Clean up unwanted characters.
Users are evil!
Well perhaps not always, but my approach is to always sanatize immediately to ensure nothing risky goes anywhere near my backend.
The added benefit is that you can provide feed back to the user if you sanitize at point of input.
Assume all users are malicious.
Sanitize all input as soon as possible.
Full stop.
I sanitize my data right before I do any processing on it. I may need to take the First and Last name fields and concatenate them into a third field that gets inserted to the database. I'm going to sanitize the input before I even do the concatenation so I don't get any kind of processing or insertion errors. The sooner the better. Even using Javascript on the front end (in a web setup) is ideal because that will occur without any data going to the server to begin with.
The scary part is that you might even want to start sanitizing data coming out of your database as well. The recent surge of ASPRox SQL Injection attacks that have been going around are doubly lethal because it will infect all database tables in a given database. If your database is hosted somewhere where there are multiple accounts being hosted in the same database, your data becomes corrupted because of somebody else's mistake, but now you've joined the ranks of hosting malware to your visitors due to no initial fault of your own.
Sure this makes for a whole lot of work up front, but if the data is critical, then it is a worthy investment.
User input should always be treated as malicious before making it down into lower layers of your application. Always handle sanitizing input as soon as possible and should not for any reason be stored in your database before checking for malicious intent.
I find that cleaning it immediately has two advantages. One, you can validate against it and provide feedback to the user. Two, you do not have to worry about consuming the data in other places.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
A user submits a search query to my site.
I then take this query and use it in other places, as well as echo'ing it back out to the page.
Right now I'm using htmlspecialchars(); to filter it.
What other steps should I take to prevent XSS, SQL Injection, etc, and things I can't even think of. I want to have all my bases covered.
<?php
$query = $_GET["query"];
$query = htmlspecialchars($query);
?>
Right now I'm using htmlspecialchars(); to filter it.
What other steps should I take to prevent XSS, SQL Injection, etc, and things I can't even think of. I want to have all my bases covered.
To cover all your bases, this depends a lot. The most straight forward (but unsatisfying) answer then probably is: do not accept user input.
And even this may sound easy, it is often not and then forgotten that any input from a different context has to be considered user input. For example when you open a file from the file-system, e.g. reading records from a database or some other data from some other system or service - not only some parameter from the HTTP request or a file upload.
Thinking this through, in context of PHP, this normally also includes the PHP code itself which is often read from disk. Not SQL, just PHP code injection.
So if you really think about the question in such a generally broad way ("etc"), the first thing you need to ensure is you've got a defined process to deploy the application and have checks and marks in place that the files of the deployment can't be tempered with (e.g. a read-only file-system). And from the operational side: You can create and restore the known state of the program within seconds with little or no side effects.
Only after that you should start to worry about other kind of user-input. For which - to complete the answer - you should only accept what is acceptable.
A user submits a search query to my site.
Accepting a search query is the higher art of user input. It involves (free form) text which tends to become more and more complex after every other day and may also include logical operators and instructions which may require parsing which involves even more components that can break and can be exploited by various kind of attacks (and SQL Injection is only one of those, albeit still pretty popular). So plan ahead for it.
As a first level mitigation, you can question if the search is really a feature that is needed. Then if you have decided on that, you should outline which problems it generally creates and you should take a look if the problems are common. That question is important because common questions may already have answers, even common answers. So if a problem is common, it is likely that the problem is already solved. Leaning towards an existing solution then only bears the problem to integrate that solution (that is understanding the problem - you always need to do it and you learn soon enough, one or two decades is normally fine - and then understanding the specific solution as you need to integrate it).
For example:
$query = $_GET["query"];
$query = htmlspecialchars($query);
is making use of variable re-use. This is commonly known to be error prone. Using different variable names that mark the context of its value(s) can help:
$getQuery = $_GET["query"];
$htmlQuery = htmlspecialchars($getQuery);
It is then more visible that $htmlQuery can be used in HTML output to show the search query (or at least was intended for it). Similar to $_GET["query"], it would make totally visible that $getQuery would not be appropriate for HTML output and its string concatenation operations.
In the original example, this would not be equally visible for $query.
It would then perhaps also made visible that in other than HTML output contexts, it ($htmlQuery) is not appropriate either. As your question suggests you already imagine that $getQuery or $htmlQuery is not appropriate to deal with the risks of an SQL Injection for example.
The example is intentionally verbose on the naming, real-life naming schemes are normally different and wouldn't emphasize the type on the variable name that much but would have a concrete type:
try {
...
$query = new Query($_GET["query"]);
...
<?= htmlspecialchars($query) ?>
If you already read up to this point, it may become more clear that there hardly can not be any one-size-fits-it-all function that magically prevents all attacks (apart from muting any kind of user-input which sometimes is equal to deleting the overall software in the first place - which is known to be safe, perhaps most of all for your software users). If you allow me the joke, maybe this is it:
$safeQuery = unset($_GET["query"]); // null
which technically works in PHP, but I hope you get the idea, it's not really meant as an answer to your question.
So now as it is hopefully clear that each input needs to be treated in context of input and output to work, it should give some pointers how and where to look for the data-handling that is of need.
Context is a big word here. One guidance is to take a look if you're dealing with user data (user input) in the input phase of a system or in the output phase.
In the input phase what you normally want to do is to sanitize, to verify the data. E.g. is it correctly encoded? Can the actual value or values the data represents (or is intended to represent) be safely decoded? Can any actual value be obtained from that data? If the encoding is already broken, ensure no further processing of that data is done. This is basically error handling and commonly means to refuse input. In context of a web-application this can mean to close the connection on the TCP transport layer (or not send anything (back) on UDP), to respond with a HTTP Status Code that denotes an error (with or without further, spare details in the response body), with a more user-friendly hypertext message in the response body, or, for a HTML-Form dedicated error messages for the part of the input that was not accepted and for some API in the format that the client can consume for the API protocol to channel out errors with the request input data (the deeper you go, the more complicated).
In the output phase it is a bit different. If you for example identified the user-input being a search query and passed the query (as value) to a search service or system and then get back the results (the reflected user input which still is user input), all this data needs to be correctly encoded to transport all result value(s) back to the user. So for example if you output the search query along with the search results, all this data needs to be passed in the expected format. In context of a web application, the user normally tells with each request what the preferred encoding of the response should be. Lets say this is normally hypertext encoded as HTML. Then all values need to be output in a way/form so that these are properly represented in HTML (and not for some error as HTML, e.g. a search for <marquee> would not cause the whole output to move all over the page - you get the idea).
htmlspecialchars() may do the job here, so might by chance htmlentities(), but which function to use with which parameters highly depends on underlying encoding like HTTP, HTML or character encoding and to which part something belongs in the response (e.g. using htmlspecialchars() on a value that is communicated back with a cookie response header would certainly not lead to intended results).
In the input phase you assert the input is matching your expectations so that you can safely let pass it along into the application or refuse further processing. Only you can know in detail what these requirements are.
In the output phase your job is to ensure that all data is properly encoded and formatted for the overall output to work and the user can safely consume it.
In the input phase you should not try to "fix" issues with the incoming data yourself, instead assume the best and communicate back that there will be no communication - or - what the problem was (note: do not let fool yourself: if this involves output of user input, mind what is important for the output phase of it, there is less risk in just dropping user input and not further process it, e.g. do not reflect it by communicating it back).
This is a bit different for the non-error handling output phase (given the input was acceptable), you err here on the safe side and encode it properly, you may even be fine with filtering the user-data so that it is safe in the output (not as the output which belongs to your overall process, and mind filtering is harder than it looks on first sight).
In short, don't filter input, only let it pass along if it is acceptable (sanitize). Filter input only in/for output if you do not have any other option (it is a fall-back, often gone wrong). Mind that filtering is often much harder and much more error prone incl. opening up to attacks than just refusing the data overall (so there is some truth in the initial joke).
Next to input or output context for the data, there is also the context in use of the values. In your example the search query. How could anyone here on Stackoverflow or any other internet site answer that as it remains completely undefined in your question: A search query. A search query for what? Isn't your question itself in a search for an answer? Taking it as an example, Stackoverflow can take it:
Verify the input is in the form of a question title and its text message that can safely enter their database - it passed that check, which can be verified as your question was published.
With your attempt to enter that query on Stackoverflow, some input validation steps were done prior sending it to the database - while already querying it: Similar questions, is your user valid etc.
As this short example shows, many of the questions for a concrete application (your application, your code) needs not only the basic foundation to work (and therefore do error handling on the protocol level, standard input and output so to say), but also to build on top of it to work technically correct (a database search for existing questions must not be prone to SQL injection, neither on the title, not on the question text, nor must the display of error messages or hints introduce other form of injections).
To come back to your own example, $htmlQuery is not appropriate if you need to encode it as a Javascript string in a response. To encode a value within Javascript as a string you would certainly use a different function, maybe json_encode($string) instead of htmlspecialchars($string).
And for passing the search query to a search service, it may be as well encoded differently, e.g. as XML, JSON or SQL (for which most database drivers offers a nice feature called parameterized queries or more formalized prepared statements which are of great help to handle input and output context more easily - common problems, common solutions).
prevent XSS, SQL Injection, etc, and things I can't even think of. I want to have all my bases covered.
You may already now spot the "error" with this "search query". It's not about the part that there aren't things you or anyone else can even think of. Regardless of how much knowledge you have, there always will be known and unknown unknowns. Next to the just sheer number of mistakes we do encode into software each other day. The one "wrong" perhaps is in thinking that there would be a one-size-fits-it-all solution (even in good intend as things must have been solved already - and truly most have been, but still one needs to learn about them first, so good you ask) and perhaps more important the other one to assume that others are solving your problems: your technical problems perhaps, but your problems you can only solve yourself. And if that sentence may sound hard, take the good side of it: You can solve them. And I write this even I can only give a lengthy answer to your question.
So take any security advice - including the text-wall I just placed here - on Stackoverflow or elsewhere with a grain of salt. Only your own sharp eyes can decide if they are appropriate to cover your bases.
Older PHP Security Poster (via my blog)
In terms of jQuery (or Javascript), what happens behind the scenes when a person posts a comment on Facebook, Twitter, or a blog?
For instance, do they sanitize the text first, and then pattern match URL's into an actual link? Are there other items of concern that the client-side should check in addition to doing some checks on the backend?
I have found a few regex's for turning URL's into links, but I'm not sure if there are better solutions.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the problem, but I'm having a difficult time knowing where to start. Any guidance you can provide is greatly appreciated!
This is a matter of opinion (in my opinion) so I'll CW this answer. Here's my opnion as a bona-fide citizen of the Internet:
There are two broad kinds of "sanitization": one is semantic sanitization, where input is checked to make sure it's what it's supposed to be (phone number, postal code, currency amount, whatever). The other is defensive sanitization, which is (again, in my opinion) a generally misguided, user-hostile activity.
Really, input is never really scary until it touches something: the database server, an HTML renderer, a JavaScript interpreter, and so on. The list is long.
As to point 1, I think that defensive sanitization is misguided because it ignores point 2 above: without knowing what environment you're defending from malicious input, you can't really sanitize it without greatly restricting the input alphabet, and even then the process may be fighting against itself. It's user-hostile because it needlessly restricts what legitimate users can do with the data they want to keep in their account. Who is to say that me wanting to include in my "comments" or "nickname" or "notes" fields characters that look like XML, or SQL, or any other language's special characters? If there's no semantic reason to filter inputs, why do that to your users?
Point 2 is really the crux of this. User input can be dangerous because server-side code (or client-side code, for that matter) can hand it over directly to unsuspecting interpretation environments where meta-characters important to each distinct environment can cause unexpected behavior. If you hand untouched user input directly to SQL by pasting it directly into a query template, then special SQL meta-characters like quotes can be used by a malicious user to control the database in ways you definitely don't want. However, that alone is no reason to prevent me from telling you that my name is "O'Henry".
The key issue with point 2 is that there are many different interpretation environments, and each of them is completely distinct as far as the threat posed by user input. Let's list a few:
SQL - quote marks in user input are a big potential problem; specific DB servers may have other exploitable syntax conventions
HTML - when user input is dropped straight into HTML, the browser's HTML parser will happily obey whatever embedded markup tells it to do, including run scripts, load tracker images, and whatever else. The key meta-characters are "<", ">", and "&" (the latter not so much because of attacks, but because of the mess they cause). It's probably also good to worry about quotes here too because user input may need to go inside HTML element attributes.
JavaScript - if a page template needs to put some user input directly into some running JavaScript code, the things to worry about are probably quotes (if the input is to be treated as a JavaScript string). If the user input needs to go into a regular expression, then a lot more scrubbing is necessary.
Logfiles - yes, logfiles. How do you look at logfiles? I do it on a simple command-line window on my Linux box. Such command-line "console" applications generally obey ancient "escape sequences" that date back to old ASCII terminals, for controlling cursor position and various other things. Well, embedded escape sequences in cleverly crafted user input can be used for crazy attacks that leverage those escape sequences; the general idea is to have some user input get dropped into some log file (maybe as part of a page error log) and trick an administrator into scrolling through the logfile in an xterm window. Wild, huh?
The key point here is that the exact techniques necessary to protect those environments from malformed or malicious input differ significantly from one to the next. Protecting your SQL server from malicious quotes is a completely different problem from guarding those quotes in HTML or JavaScript (and note that both of those are totally different from each other too!).
The bottom line: my opinion, therefore, is that the proper focus of attention when worrying about potentially malformed or malicious input is the process of writing user data, not reading it. As each fragment of user-supplied data is used by your software in cooperation with each interpreting environment, a "quoting" or "escaping" operation has to be done, and it has to be an operation specific to the target environment. How exactly that's arranged may vary all over the place. Traditionally in SQL, for example, one uses prepared statements, though there are times when the deficiencies of prepared statements make that approach difficult. When spitting out HTML, most server-side frameworks have all sorts of built-in hooks for HTML or XML escaping with entity notation (like & for "&"). Nowadays, the simplest way to protect things for Javascript is to leverage a JSON serializer, though of course there are other ways to go.
Despite my paranoia I've never really gotten around to understanding web security more, so my lack of knowledge is causing me a bit of confusion for this.
Example: Let's say you have 2 text boxes, both are for user input.
The user types in whatever they want into those two text boxes and clicks a button, the button then uses a bit of JavaScript and concatenates whatever is in those two text boxes and displays it out in a div.
My question is, in this case, since it's using JavaScript client side, do you need to really sanitize user input?
What if it outputted to a text box instead of a div? Or as an alert?
I understand that when it comes to forms/PHP you always want to sanitize input, but I'm not really familiar with JavaScript security precautions.
It's my understanding that since this is client-side, and no data is being saved by the server, that whatever the user does (tries to throw in some malicious code or whatnot) won't affect anyone but that user, correct?
No this is not a security issue. The reason why is because an attacker has to force a victim's the browser into making this action in order for it to be XSS.
However, if you grab input from something like document.location and then print it to the page using document.write() then this is DOM based XSS. But this is very a uncommon form of XSS.
You don't have to sanitize anything that is not going to the server.
If people want to do something to their instance of your page, the only one they can hurt is themselves. Look at everything you can do with an extension like GreaseMonkey ... we're talking a lot more than just concatenating strings and displaying them.
How do you avoid cross-site script attacks?
Cross-site script attacks (or cross-site scripting) is if you for example have a guestbook on your homepage and a client posts some javascript code which fx redirects you to another website or sends your cookies in an email to a malicious user or it could be a lot of other stuff which can prove to be real harmful to you and the people visiting your page.
I'm sure it can be done fx. in PHP by validating forms but I'm not experienced enough to fx. ban javascript or other things which can harm you.
I hope you understand my question and that you are able to help me.
I'm sure it can be done fx. in PHP by validating forms
Not really. The input stage is entirely the wrong place to be addressing XSS issues.
If the user types, say <script>alert(document.cookie)</script> into an input, there is nothing wrong with that in itself. I just did it in this message, and if StackOverflow didn't allow it we'd have great difficulty talking about JavaScript on the site! In most cases you want to allow any input(*), so that users can use a < character to literally mean a less-than sign.
The thing is, when you write some text into an HTML page, you must escape it correctly for the context it's going into. For PHP, that means using htmlspecialchars() at the output stage:
<p> Hello, <?php echo htmlspecialchars($name); ?>! </p>
[PHP hint: you can define yourself a function with a shorter name to do echo htmlspecialchars, since this is quite a lot of typing to do every time you want to put a variable into some HTML.]
This is necessary regardless of where the text comes from, whether it's from a user-submitted form or not. Whilst user-submitted data is the most dangerous place to forget your HTML-encoding, the point is really that you're taking a string in one format (plain text) and inserting it into a context in another format (HTML). Any time you throw text into a different context, you're going to need an encoding/escaping scheme appropriate to that context.
For example if you insert text into a JavaScript string literal, you would have to escape the quote character, the backslash and newlines. If you insert text into a query component in a URL, you will need to convert most non-alphanumerics into %xx sequences. Every context has its own rules; you have to know which is the right function for each context in your chosen language/framework. You cannot solve these problems by mangling form submissions at the input stage—though many naïve PHP programmers try, which is why so many apps mess up your input in corner cases and still aren't secure.
(*: well, almost any. There's a reasonable argument for filtering out the ASCII control characters from submitted text. It's very unlikely that allowing them would do any good.
Plus of course you will have application-specific validations that you'll want to do, like making sure an e-mail field looks like an e-mail address or that numbers really are numeric. But this is not something that can be blanket-applied to all input to get you out of trouble.)
Cross-site scripting attacks (XSS) happen when a server accepts input from the client and then blindly writes that input back to the page. Most of the protection from these attacks involves escaping the output, so the Javascript turns into plain HTML.
One thing to keep in mind is that it is not only data coming directly from the client that may contain an attack. A Stored XSS attack involves writing malicious JavaScript to a database, whose contents are then queried by the web application. If the database can be written separately from the client, the application may not be able to be sure that the data had been escaped properly. For this reason, the web application should treat ALL data that it writes to the client as if it may contain an attack.
See this link for a thorough resource on how to protect yourself: http://www.owasp.org/index.php/XSS_(Cross_Site_Scripting)_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet
I'm planning on making a web app that will allow users to post entire web pages on my website. I'm thinking of using HTML Purifier but I'm not sure because HTML Purifier edits the HTLM and it's important that the HTML is maintained just how it was posted. So I was thinking making some regex to get rid of all script tags and all the javascript attributes like onload, onclick, etc.
I saw a Google video a while ago that had a solution for this. Their solution was to use another website to post javascript in so the original website cannot be accessed by it. But I don't wanna purchase a new domain just for this.
be careful with homebrew regexes for this kind of thing
A regex like
s/(<.*?)onClick=['"].*?['"](.*?>)/$1 $3/
looks like it might get rid of onclick events, but you can circumvent it with
<a onClick<a onClick="malicious()">="malicious()">
running the regex on that will get you something like
<a onClick ="malicious()">
You can fix it by repeatedly running the regex on that string until it doesn't match, but that's just one example of how easy it is to get around simple regex sanitizers.
The most critical error people make when doing this is validating things on input.
Instead, you should validate on display.
The context matters when determing what is XSS and what isn't. Therefore, you can happily accept any input, as long as you pass it through appropriate cleaning functions when displaying it.
Consider that something that constitutes 'XSS' will be different when the input is placed in a '<a href="HERE"> as opposed to <a>here!</a>.
Thus, all you need to do, is make sure that any time you write user data, you consider, very carefully, where you are displaying it, and make sure that it can't escape the context you are writing it to.
If you can find any other way of letting users post content, that does not involve HTML, do that. There are plenty of user-side light markup systems you can use to generate HTML.
So I was thinking making some regex to get rid of all script tags and all the javascript attributes like onload, onclick, etc.
Forget it. You cannot process HTML with regex in any useful way. Let alone when security is involved and attackers might be deliberately throwing malformed markup at you.
If you can convince your users to input XHTML, that's much easier to parse. You still can't do it with regex, but you can throw it into a simple XML parser, and walk over the resulting node tree to check that every element and attribute is known-safe, and delete any that aren't, then re-serialise.
HTML Purifier edits the HTLM and it's important that the HTML is maintained just how it was posted.
Why?
If it's so they can edit it in their original form, then the answer is simply to purify it on the way out to be displayed in the browser, not on the way in at submit-time.
If you must let users input their own free-form HTML — and in general I'd advise against it — then HTML Purifier, with a whitelist approach (ban all elements/attributes that aren't known-safe) is about as good as it gets. It's very very complicated and you may have to keep it up to date when hacks are found, but it's streets ahead of anything you're going to hack up yourself with regexes.
But I don't wanna purchase a new domain just for this.
You can use a subdomain, as long as any authentication tokens (in particular, cookies) can't cross between subdomains. (Which for cookies they can't by default as the domain parameter is set to only the current hostname.)
Do you trust your users with scripting capability? If not don't let them have it, or you'll get attack scripts and iframes to Russian exploit/malware sites all over the place...
Make sure that user content doesn't contain anything that could cause Javascript to be ran on your page.
You can do this by using an HTML stripping function that gets rid of all HTML tags (like strip_tags from PHP), or by using another similar tool. There are actually many reasons besides XSS to do this. If you have user submitted content, you want to make sure that it doesn't break the site layout.
I belive you can simply use a sub-domain of your current domain to host Javascript, and you will get the same security benefits for AJAX. Not cookies however.
In your specific case, filtering out the <script> tag and Javascript actions is probably going to be your best bet.
1) Use clean simple directory based URIs to serve user feed data.
Make sure when you dynamically create URIs to address the user's uploaded data, service account, or anything else off your domain make sure you don't post information as parameters to the URI. That is an extremely easy point of manipulation that could be used to expose flaws in your server security and even possibly inject code onto your server.
2) Patch your server.
Ensure you keep your server up to date on all the latest security patches for all the services running on that server.
3) Take all possible server-side protections against SQL injection.
If somebody can inject code to your SQL database that can execute from services on your box that person will own your box. At that point they can then install malware onto your webserver to be feed back to your users or simple record data from the server and send it out to a malicious party.
4) Force all new uploads into a protected sandboxed area to test for script execution.
No matter how you try to remove script tags from submitted code there will be a way to circumvent your safeguards to execute script. Browsers are sloppy and do all kinds of stupid crap they are not supposed to do. Test your submissions in a safe area before you publish them for public consumption.
5) Check for beacons in submitted code.
This step requires the previous step and can be very complicated, because it can occur in script code that requires a browser plugin to execute, such as Action Script, but is just as much a vulnerability as allowing JavaScript to execute from user submitted code. If a user can submit code that can beacon out to a third party then your users, and possibly your server, is completely exposed to data loss to a malicious third party.
You should filter ALL HTML and whitelist only the tags and attributes that are safe and semantically useful. WordPress is great at this and I assume that you will find the regular expressions used by WordPress if you search their source code.