Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

13.6.2 move into V50 (if not merged into V50.4.1) #2492

Open
elarlang opened this issue Jan 2, 2025 · 1 comment
Open

13.6.2 move into V50 (if not merged into V50.4.1) #2492

elarlang opened this issue Jan 2, 2025 · 1 comment
Labels
1) Discussion ongoing Issue is opened and assigned but no clear proposal yet 4a) Waiting for another This issue is waiting for another issue to be resolved V13 V50 Group issues related to Web Frontend _5.0 - prep This needs to be addressed to prepare 5.0

Comments

@elarlang
Copy link
Collaborator

elarlang commented Jan 2, 2025

Current requirement 13.6.2:

# Description L1 L2 L3 CWE
13.6.2 [MODIFIED, MOVED FROM 13.2.1] Verify that HTTP requests using the HEAD, OPTIONS, TRACE or GET verb do not modify any backend data structure or perform any state-changing actions. These requests are safe methods and should therefore not have any side effects. 650

I think this is browser-based attack scenario specific and a pre-condition to have defense against (so-callsd) CSRF attacks in place.

The option is to merge into to the "csrf" requirement or move to the same section.

Related comment and issue: #2481 (comment)

@elarlang elarlang added 1) Discussion ongoing Issue is opened and assigned but no clear proposal yet _5.0 - prep This needs to be addressed to prepare 5.0 V50 Group issues related to Web Frontend V13 labels Jan 2, 2025
@tghosth
Copy link
Collaborator

tghosth commented Jan 2, 2025

So the question is, is CSRF the only security risk which this requirement addresses?

In principle, there is a general assumption that HEAD, OPTIONS, TRACE or GET verb do not modify any backend data structure or perform any state-changing actions. However, I am not sure there is a specific security risk outside of CSRF.

This requirement seems to have been added as a result of the discussion in #672 which included people such as @Sjord, @VincentDS, and @Someniak.

Based on that discussion I think the only risk is CSRF and therefore I propose that this should be merged into the CSRF requirement (currently being worked on in #2481).

I am open to other points of view though.

@elarlang elarlang added the 4a) Waiting for another This issue is waiting for another issue to be resolved label Jan 3, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
1) Discussion ongoing Issue is opened and assigned but no clear proposal yet 4a) Waiting for another This issue is waiting for another issue to be resolved V13 V50 Group issues related to Web Frontend _5.0 - prep This needs to be addressed to prepare 5.0
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants