java mass assignment

• Browse topics

SNYK LEARN LOGIN

• 🌍 Snyk (recommended)

OTHER REGIONS

For Snyk Enterprise customers with regional contracts. More info

• 🇦🇺 Snyk AUS

Mass assignment

Be careful with parameters that are automatically bound from requests to objects, select your ecosystem, mass assignment: the basics, what are mass assignment vulnerabilities.

To make it easier to save data submitted via an HTML form into a database or object, many web application frameworks have included libraries to automatically bind HTTP request parameters (typically sent via forms) to the fields of database models or members of an object, requiring only minimal coding.

Let’s say we have a (very simple) HTML form:

When the form is submitted to the web application, it will send the form data as HTTP request parameters, and the backend code will have to read each parameter individually into a corresponding variable. Then, once all the fields have been read, the application will usually execute a database update or insert operation to save the data.

Mass Assignment makes it possible to write less code to handle this process - think about how much coding this technique could save if it was an object that had dozens of fields, and multiply this across a complex application that has many of these objects in its database.

Mass assignment vulnerabilities occur when the database model that is being assigned contains security-relevant fields, and the application user can supply values in the POST request that are saved to those fields, even though they are not present in the HTML form.

For example, if the User model contained a field isAdmin: Boolean , the user could add the POST body parameter isAdmin=true and make themselves an administrator.

For this to occur, an attacker would need to guess the names of the sensitive fields, or the source code for the vulnerable application would have to be available to the attacker (allowing them to see what sensitive fields are present in the data model).

Impacts of this attack can include bypassing authentication or authorization logic or elevation of privilege. This could then result in the destruction or disclosure of data within the application.

About this lesson

In this lesson, you will learn how mass assignment vulnerabilities work and how to protect your applications against them. We will begin by exploiting a Mass Assignment vulnerability in a simple application. Then we will analyze the vulnerable code and explore some options for remediation and prevention.

Mass assignment in the wild

In 2012, a GitHub user exploited a Mass Assignment vulnerability in GitHub’s public key update form. The flaw allowed the user to add their public key to another organization they were not a member of. The user added their key to the Ruby on Rails organization. To demonstrate proof of the exploit, the user added a file to the Rails project repository. GitHub responded, quickly fixing the vulnerability and they conducted a wide audit of their code to ensure the issue was detected and fixed if it existed anywhere else.

Mass assignment in action

New SaaS startup SuperCloudCRM recently launched their web platform designed to help businesses boost their sales and marketing efforts.

Setting the stage

SuperCloudCRM recently launched its web platform. Unfortunately, they suffered a security breach, resulting in data being leaked. What went wrong?

Mass assignment details

As mentioned, SuperCloudCRM’s developers had been logging request data for API endpoints like the POST /user/create endpoint, which creates new user accounts when a user submits the signup form.

A typical JSON payload in the request sent to the /user/create endpoint was supposed to look like this:

But a search of the /user/create endpoint’s logs for the [email protected] account around the time the user was created, found JSON POST data starting with the following excerpt:

It was different to the normal requests, and had a long request body with dozens more fields all starting with the letter r . What was the attacker doing? All of these weird field names that weren’t part of the user model schema, which was:

After doing some testing like the scenario above showed, a few things were discovered.

First, the new user account’s password was apparently being saved to the database in plaintext. Not good! But what stuck out was that the application ignored the non-existent fields and just assigned the fields that were actually part of the User model schema.

The data from the new User document was sent back to the API client and the attacker could then infer which of the list of fields starting with r were part of the User model schema, because if a field existed it was saved and echoed back in the response with the other user data.

A search of the /user/create endpoint’s request log entries around the same time revealed that thousands of similar requests had been sent. Each request testing lists of possible field names in the User model schema.

It was concluded that the attackers had brute-forced HTTP requests with various field name guesses to enumerate the organization and role fields in the schema. Despite them not being referred to anywhere in the client-side JavaScript code, the attackers were able to discover these security-related field names.

So, if the attackers knew these field names, what would they do then? Well, this could have led to a possible mass assignment attack. After hours of reviewing logs for the POST /user/create and POST /user/update endpoints the incident response team found dozens of requests had been submitted to the application, which looked similar to:

The requests appeared to be successful. Each of the requests changed the organization to a different customer, essentially giving the attackers access to each of them as admins. The last request was:

This seemed to explain why [email protected] was an administrator in the Cowmoo Industries organization.

By exploiting this mass assignment vulnerability and adding themselves as the administrator for various customers, the attackers were able to access the organizations’ data within SuperCloudCRM and steal it.

Mass assignment by different names

The concept of mass assignment is known by different names in various programming languages or frameworks. NodeJS and Ruby on Rails call it mass assignment. It is referred to as autobinding in Java Spring MVC and ASP NET MVC. PHP calls it object injection.

Mass assignment under the hood

Let’s have a look at this vulnerable application in more detail by going through the server-side code.

The schema for the User model is defined here, with the user’s credentials, email address, plus their role and organization they belong to. During signup, the credentials and email address are the only values that are supposed to be supplied by the user and accepted by the application.

Firstly, let's recap what took place in the example above.

• The User schema consisted of several fields: username, password, email, role and organization.
• Only the username, password and email fields were sent from the web browser to the /user/create endpoint
• The API endpoint used mass assignment to blindly assign any field from the POST request’s JSON data to the User model in the database (if the field existed in the User schema).
• The attackers were able to determine the names of security-related fields in the schema (role and organization)
• The attackers could supply arbitrary values for these fields when creating or updating a user account
• This let the attackers add themselves to other organizations and elevate their privileges to those of an administrator

Here ( $user = new User($request->post()); ), the endpoint creates a new User object and in doing so, passes all contents of the POST request to the constructor. PHP can “smartly” figure out which parameters go to which attributes of the class; however, this isn’t so smart when those attributes are certain things that shouldn’t be assignable! Even if the form only accepts inputs with username , password and email , a malicious actor can guess the other forms and simply add those fields to the JSON manually. As PHP has no way of discerning what it receives from “good” and “bad”, it simply updates them all. If only there were a way to tell PHP exactly which fields we don’t want to be assignable like that!

Impacts of mass assignment

By exploiting mass assignment vulnerabilities, a malicious actor could create multiple security problems including

• Data tampering : Attackers can modify sensitive information in the database, such as password or account balance
• Data theft : Attackers can gain access to confidential information stored in the database
• Elevation of privilege : Attackers can manipulate the properties of an object to gain additional privileges, such as administrator access
• Unauthorized access : Attackers can manipulate the properties of an object to gain unauthorized access to sensitive resources

Scan your code & stay secure with Snyk - for FREE!

Did you know you can use Snyk for free to verify that your code doesn't include this or other vulnerabilities?

Mass assignment mitigation

Use an allowlist of fields that can be assigned to.

Most mass assignment libraries or helper libraries should provide the ability to restrict the fields that will be read from a request and assigned to the data model. By restricting the assignment of user-supplied fields to only fields in the schema that are known safe ones, the values of security-sensitive fields will be prevented from tampering.

Using this strategy, the code for the application would be changed to add an allowlist using the pick() method of the underscore package and listing the allowed fields in the userCreateSafeFields array:

Laravel provides a library, eloquent , which, among other things, introduces object injection protection features! It gives you the ability to indicate variables that can be assigned, or otherwise, you can indicate variables that you don’t want assignable. This means that when you use mass assignment to populate a class with request data, the Laravel backend can (with your guiding hand) separate POST request input data from fields that should be populated and those that should not!

Using this strategy, the code for the application can be changed to add an allow-list of class attributes, enforcing that only these will be updated:

Use a Data Transfer Object (DTO)

Another option is to create an intermediary object (the DTO) that only has safe, assignable properties, which would be a subset of the target object that has those same fields plus any sensitive fields. Using our User example, the DTO would be:

The mass assignment operation can assign any user-supplied data to the DTO without the risk of inadvertently assigning any sensitive fields. The DTO can be copied to the final object, and during this process, any sensitive fields can be set to secure default values.

This method might require much more coding though. DTOs need to be created for all classes with sensitive fields. If there are many schemas with sensitive fields that require corresponding DTOs, then this becomes nearly as much work as not using mass assignment.

Use a denylist to declare fields that can’t be assigned to

The opposite of using an allowlist to define fields that are allowed to be assigned is to use a denylist of fields that shouldn’t be assigned. Security wisdom says to use allowlisting over denylisting because it’s safer to accidentally not include a safe field than to accidentally omit a dangerous field. So, following this advice, a denylist would be the less preferred option of the two. If there are 50 fields in a schema and only one is security-sensitive, then it is obviously much quicker to just denylist the one sensitive field. The danger here though would be if additional sensitive fields were added to the schema later and the developer forgot to add them to the denylist, then you would have a mass assignment vulnerability.

To use denylists, the code for the application would be changed in a similar manner to the code shown in the allow-list strategy shown earlier, except it would use the omit() method of the underscore package and listing the disallowed fields in the userCreateDisallowedFields array:

To use deny-lists, the code for the application would be changed in a similar manner to the code shown in the allow-list strategy shown earlier, the only difference being the User class is changed to have a “hidden” array:

Utilize a static analysis tool

Adding a static application security testing ( SAST ) tool to your devops pipeline as an additional line of defense is an excellent way to catch vulnerabilities before they make it to production. There are many, but Snyk Code is our personal favorite, as it scans in real-time, provides actionable remediation advice, and is available from your favorite IDE.

Keep learning

To learn more about mass assignment vulnerabilities, check out some other great content:

• OWASP guide to mass assignment vulnerabilties
• Find mass assignment in our top 10 list

Congratulations

You have taken your first step into learning what mass assignment is, how it works, what the impacts are, and how to protect your own applications. We hope that you will apply this knowledge to make your applications safer.

We'd really appreciate it if you could take a minute to rate how valuable this lesson was for you and provide feedback to help us improve! Also, make sure to check out our lessons on other common vulnerabilities.

What is mass assignment?

Mass assignment is a type of security vulnerability that occurs when an application code allows user-provided data to be used to set properties on an object without verifying that the user has the right to do so.

What to learn next?

Excessive agency, prompt injection, runc process.cwd container breakout vulnerability.

Mass Assignment in Java

Vulnerable example.

GSON is a serialization/deserialization library that allows for convenient and transparent Java class conversion, to and from their JSON representation, with zero configuration. Developers might be tempted to process user-originated JSON requests with this library to obtain Java objects that ultimately will be passed around in the actual business code. When these intermediate Java objects are also used to hold internal fields, it is easy to forget to implement proper validation mechanisms that prevent a malicious user to mass-assign an internal field.

Imagine having the following class:

Also imagine that such a class is used like this:

Now assume that the AssetUploadParameters object is created using some user-controlled JSON:

A legit JSON object might look like the following:

A malicious user might exploit this vulnerability to obtain an arbitrary file write privilege on the application server, for example with:

There are several ways to prevent these kinds of vulnerabilities. Probably the most straightforward way is to create a separation between the user input and the internal data structure so that no contamination is possible; in this case, individual fields are cherry-picked. This is basically an allow list approach concerning which fields the user can assign. In the above example, this could be implemented as follows:

Alternatively, marking a member as transient has the effect of excluding it from the serialization/deserialization process. For example, using this class in the above example resolves the exposure:

Yet another option is to demand the allow list approach to the library. In the case of GSON, see ExclusionStrategy .

CWE - CWE-915: Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes

OWASP - Mass Assignment Cheat Sheet