F4F: taint analysis of framework-based web applications

ABSTRACT

This paper presents F4F (Framework For Frameworks), a system for effective taint analysis of framework-based web applications. Most modern web applications utilize one or more web frameworks, which provide useful abstractions for common functionality. Due to extensive use of reflective language constructs in framework implementations, existing static taint analyses are often ineffective when applied to framework-based applications. While previous work has included ad hoc support for certain framework constructs, adding support for a large number of frameworks in this manner does not scale from an engineering standpoint.

F4F employs an initial analysis pass in which both application code and configuration files are processed to generate a specification of framework-related behaviors. A taint analysis engine can leverage these specifications to perform a much deeper, more precise analysis of framework-based applications. Our specification language has only a small number of simple but powerful constructs, easing analysis engine integration. With this architecture, new frameworks can be handled with no changes to the core analysis engine, yielding significant engineering benefits.

We implemented specification generators for several web frameworks and added F4F support to a state-of-the-art taint-analysis engine. In an experimental evaluation, the taint analysis enhanced with F4F discovered 525 new issues across nine benchmarks, a harmonic mean of 2.10X more issues per benchmark. Furthermore, manual inspection of a subset of the new issues showed that many were exploitable or reflected bad security practice.

References

1. J. Aldrich, J. Sunshine, D. Saini, and Z. Sparks. Typestate-oriented programming. In OOPSLA Onward!, 2009.
2. T. Ball, V. Levin, and F. Xie. Automatic creation of environment models via training. In TACAS, 2004.
3. Java SE Desktop Technologies -- Java Beans. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/tech/index-jsp-138795.htm%l.
4. M. Bravenboer and Y. Smaragdakis. Strictly declarative specification of sophisticated points-to analyses. In OOPSLA, 2009.
5. S. Burbeck. Applications programming in Smalltalk-80: How to use model-view-controller (MVC). http://st-www.cs.illinois.edu/users/smarch/st-docs/mvc.html, 1992.
6. P. Centonze, G. Naumovich, S. J. Fink, and M. Pistoia. Role-Based Access Control Consistency Validation. In ISSTA, 2006.
7. The Unified Expression Language. http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/reference/techart/unifiedEL.html.
8. S. Guarnieri, M. Pistoia, O. Tripp, J. Dolby, S. Teilhet, and R. Berg. Saving the World Wide Web from vulnerable JavaScript. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, 2011.
9. C. Jaspan and J. Aldrich. Checking framework interactions with relationships. In ECOOP, 2009.
10. Java EE at a Glance. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaee/.
11. JavaServer Pages Technology. http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/.
12. B. Livshits, J. Whaley, and M. S. Lam. Reflection analysis for Java. In K. Yi, editor, Proceedings of the 3rd Asian Symposium on Programming Languages and Systems, Nov. 2005.
13. V. B. Livshits and M. S. Lam. Finding security errors in Java programs with static analysis. In Proceedings of the 14th Usenix Security Symposium, Aug. 2005.
14. V. B. Livshits, A. V. Nori, S. K. Rajamani, and A. Banerjee. Merlin: specification inference for explicit information flow problems. In PLDI, 2009.
15. A. C. Myers. JFlow: practical mostly-static information flow control. In POPL, 1999.
16. R. O'Callahan. Generalized Aliasing as a Basis for Program Analysis Tools. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, November 2000.
17. OWASP. Cross-site scripting. http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-site_Scripting_(XSS). Accessed 16-August-2011.
18. U. Shankar, K. Talwar, J. S. Foster, and D. Wagner. Detecting format string vulnerabilities with type qualifiers. In USENIX Security Symposium, 2001.
19. T. Tateishi, M. Pistoia, and O. Tripp. Path- and index-sensitive string analysis based on monadic second-order logic. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA '11, 2011.
20. O. Tripp, M. Pistoia, S. J. Fink, M. Sridharan, and O. Weisman. TAJ: effective taint analysis of web applications. In PLDI, 2009.
21. R. Vallée-Rai, L. Hendren, V. Sundaresan, P. Lam, E. Gagnon, and P. Co. Soot - a Java optimization framework. In Proceedings of CASCON, 1999.
22. T.J. Watson Libraries for Analysis (WALA). http://wala.sourceforge.net.
23. Wikipedia. Comparison of web application frameworks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks. Accessed 16-August-2011.
24. X. Zhang, L. Koved, M. Pistoia, S. Weber, T. Jaeger, G. Marceau, and L. Zeng. The case for analysis preserving language transformation. In ISSTA, 2006.

Index Terms

• General and reference

  • Cross-computing tools and techniques

    • Verification

• Software and its engineering

  • Software creation and management

    • Software development process management

    • Software verification and validation

      • Formal software verification

      • Software defect analysis

        • Software testing and debugging

  • Software organization and properties

    • Software functional properties

      • Formal methods

        • Software verification

• Theory of computation

  • Semantics and reasoning

    • Program reasoning

      • Program verification