![]() ![]() Ok if the first letter of the first table name is between S and Z, pause X seconds before responding back to me.Ok, if the first letter of the first table name is between M and R, pause X seconds before responding back to me.If the first letter of the first table name is between M and Z, pause X seconds before responding back to me (DB pauses).If the first letter of the first table name is between A and L, pause X seconds before responding back to me.You're essentially requesting data like this: ![]() This is because you're retrieving data one character at a time by asking boolean questions about each character. With blind, timing-based SQLi, it's still possible to exfiltrate data but it's very painful unless you can do an open row-set type of attack. This is because you can retrieve data one field (or more) at a time. ![]() With error-based SQLi, it's possible to exfiltrate data at a reasonable rate, sufficient enough to cause immense damage if the data is sensitive enough. As usual it was a combination of weaknesses, not just the initial web application flaw, that allowed us to chain attacks together and do such significant damage. By the end of the day we had compromised the SQL server, pivoted from it, and escalated privileges until we owned the entire Microsoft Active Directory infrastructure. In this scenario, we identified a blind, timing-based SQLi vulnerability. We recently had one of these situations come up in an external penetration test that warrants writing about. This is true much of the time but it's also possible to fully compromise a SQL server, use it as a pivot point, and attack the internal network. Most people can assume SQLi attacks are focused on getting data out of the database by subverting the vulnerable application's original database queries with your own. Seemingly unrelated controls like egress firewall filtering, intra-zone network filtering from the database to the rest of the internal network, and even what type of encryption/hashing is in place for sensitive database tables can also increase or decrease the risk. The specific risk of any given instance of a SQLi attack depends on a lot of variables like the type/version of SQL server used by a vulnerable application, the sensitivity of the application's data, the permissions of the database user issuing the vulnerable query, how the application handles error messages, the DBMS configuration, and other such nuances. #SQLI DUMPER WAF SCRIPT CODE#It still happens but when we do find it, it's often in an old, forgotten application or a piece of old code in a newer application. Modern development frameworks require that you really step off the beaten path in order to end up with an application that is vulnerable to SQLi. Whatevs though, the term is commonly used both ways in our industry. I hate using the term "SQLi Vulnerability" because SQLi is an attack, not a vulnerability. It's not uncommon for us to identify SQL injection (SQLi) vulnerabilities during network penetration tests or targeted web application security assessments although it sure seems to be getting less frequent. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |