CSRF simplified: A no-nonsense guide to Cross-Site Request Forgery
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) is a serious web security vulnerability that allows attackers to exploit active sessions of targeted users to perform privileged actions on their behalf. Depending on the relevancy of the action and the permissions of the targeted user, a successful CSRF attack may result in anything from minor integrity impacts to a complete compromise of the application.
CSRF attacks can be delivered in various ways, and there are multiple defenses against them. At the same time, there are also many misconceptions surrounding this type of attack. Despite being a well-known vulnerability, there’s a growing tendency to rely too heavily on automated solutions and privacy-enhancing defaults in modern browsers to detect and prevent this issue. While these methods can mitigate exploitation in some cases, they can foster a false sense of security and don’t always fully address the problem.
It’s time to shatter the uncertainties surrounding CSRF once and for all. We’ll outline its fundamentals, attack methods, defense strategies, and common misconceptions – all with accompanied examples.
Cross-Site Request Forgery simplified
CSRF allows adversary-issued actions to be performed by an authenticated victim. A common example, given no implemented controls, involves you being logged into your bank account and then visiting an attacker-controlled website. Without your knowledge, this website submits a request to transfer funds from your account to the attacker’s using a hidden form.
Because you’re logged in on the bank application, the request is authenticated. This happens because the attacker crafted a request that appeared to originate from your browser, which automatically included your authentication credentials.
Assume that the simplified request below is sent when a fund transfer is made to an intended recipient:
POST /transfer HTTP/1.1
Host: vulnerable bank
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Cookie: session=<token>
[...]
amount=100&toUser=intendedTo forge this request, an attacker would host the following HTML on their page:
<html>
<body>
<form action="vulnerable bank/transfer" method="POST">
<input type="hidden" name="amount" value="5000"/>
<input type="hidden" name="toUser" value="attacker"/>
</form>
<script>
document.forms[0].submit();
</script>
</body>
</html>This creates a hidden form on the attacker’s page. When visited by an authenticated victim, it triggers the victim’s browser to issue the request below with their session cookie, resulting in an unintended transfer to the attacker’s account:
POST /transfer HTTP/1.1
Host: vulnerable bank
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Cookie: session=<token> (automatically included by the browser)
[...]
amount=5000&toUser=attackerFor this scenario to be possible, two conditions must be met:
1. The attacker must be able to determine all parameters and their corresponding values that are needed to perform a sensitive action. In the above scenario, only two are present: “amount” and “toUser”. An attacker can easily determine these by, for example, observing a legitimate outgoing request from their own account. The parameters’ values cannot hence be set to something unknown or unpredictable.
2. The victim’s browser must automatically include their authentication credentials. In our scenario, the bank application maintains an authenticated state using the “session” cookie. Controlling flags can be set on cookies to prevent them from being automatically included by requests issued cross-site, but more on this later.
This is the entire foundation for CSRF vulnerabilities. In a real-world scenario, performing sensitive actions would most likely not be possible with a request this simplified, as various defenses can prevent any or both conditions from being met.
CSRF defenses and bypasses
Understanding the two necessary conditions for CSRF, we can explore the most common defenses and how these can be circumvented if implemented incorrectly.
CSRF tokens
CSRF tokens are a purposeful defense aimed at preventing the condition of predictability. A CSRF token is simply an unpredictable value, tied to the user’s session, that is included in the request to validate an action – a value not known to the attacker.
Added to our fund transfer request, it would look as follows:
POST /transfer HTTP/1.1
Host: vulnerable bank
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Cookie: session=<token>
[...]
amount=100&toUser=intended&csrf=o24b65486f506e2cd4403caf0d640024Already here, we can get an implementation fault out of the way:
Fault 1
If a security control relies on a value that is intended to be unknown to attackers, then proper measures are required to prevent disclosing the value, as well as to stop attackers from deducing or brute-forcing it.
To ensure the token’s unpredictability, it must be securely generated with sufficient entropy.
Primarily, an application transmits CSRF tokens in two ways: synchronizer token patterns and double-submit cookie patterns.
Synchronizer token patterns
In a synchronized token pattern, the server generates a CSRF token and shares it with the client before returning it, usually through a hidden form parameter for the associated action, such as:
[…]
<input required type="hidden" name="csrf" value="o24b65486f506e2cd4403caf0d640024">
[…]On form submission, the server checks the CSRF token against one stored in the user’s session. If they match, the request is approved; otherwise, it’s rejected.
Fault 2
Failing to validate the CSRF token received from the client against the expected token stored in the user’s session enables an attacker to use a valid token from their own account to approve the request.
Observation
Keep in mind that even if the token is securely generated and validated, having it within the HTML document will leave it accessible to cross-site scripting and other vulnerabilities that can exfiltrate parts of the document, such as dangling markup and CSS injection.
If it’s also returned to the server as a request parameter, as in the example above, then an exfiltrated token can be easily added to a forged request. To prevent this, CSRF tokens can be returned as custom request headers.
POST /transfer HTTP/1.1
Host: vulnerable bank
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Cookie: session=<token>
X-ANTI-CSRF: o24b65486f506e2cd4403caf0d640024
[...]
amount=100&toUser=intendedThis way, it will not be possible to send them cross-origin without a permissive CORS implementation. This is thanks to the same-origin policy, which prevents browsers from sending custom headers cross-origin.
Nonetheless, this method is uncommon, as it restricts the application to sending CSRF protected requests using AJAX.
Double-submit cookie patterns
In a double-submit cookie pattern, the server generates the token and sends it to the client in a cookie. Then the server only needs to verify that its value matches one sent in either a request parameter or header. This process is stateless, as the server doesn’t need to store any information about the CSRF token.
POST /transfer HTTP/1.1
Host: vulnerable bank
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Cookie: session=<token>; anti-csrf=o24b65486f506e2cd4403caf0d640024
[...]
amount=100&toUser=intended&csrf=o24b65486f506e2cd4403caf0d640024Fault 3
The issue arises when an attacker can overwrite the cookie value with their own, for example, through a response header injection or a taken-over subdomain. This allows them to use their own value in the token sent amongst the request parameters.
To mitigate this, it’s recommended to cryptographically sign the CSRF token using a secret known only to the server. This implementation is referred to as a signed double-submit cookie.
SameSite cookies
SameSite is an attribute that can be set on cookies to control how they are sent with cross-site requests. The values that the attribute can be given are ‘Strict’, ‘Lax’ and ‘None’.
[…]
Set-Cookie: session=O24LlkOLowhfxJ9hkUCfw4uZ6cSrFvUE; SameSite=Strict|Lax|None
[…]Strict
When the SameSite attribute is set to ‘Strict’, the browser will only send the cookie for same-site requests. This means that the cookie will not be sent along with requests initiated from a different site, preventing our second CSRF condition: the victim’s browser automatically including their authentication credentials.
The only way around this would be if the attacker could somehow get the application to trigger a forged request to itself.
Fault 4
Consider that the application features some JavaScript for initiating client-side requests, such as a redirect that also accepts user input to determine its location. If an attacker could supply a URL with a state-changing action to this feature, the state-changing action would be sent within the same-site context, as it would be redirected from the application itself.
As demonstrated in figures 2-3, delivering the state-changing action directly to the victim results in the request being denied. However, including the action within a client-side redirect beforehand bypasses the protection offered by ‘SameSite=Strict’ cookies. Be cautious of client-side features like this in your codebase. It’s also not impossible that these may directly include CSRF tokens, rendering even synchronizer-token defenses ineffective.
To emphasize, this only works with client-side / DOM-based redirects. A state-changing action passed through a traditional 302 server-side redirect with a set “Location” header wouldn’t be treated as same-site. Welcome to the era of “client-side CSRF”.
Observation
What if the application lacks abusable client-side code but is vulnerable to direct JavaScript injection, meaning there is a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability?
I’ve seen multiple claimed “XSS to CSRF” chains and scenarios, often implying that the former enables the latter, but this is incorrect.
If an attacker has control over the JavaScript, then they also have control over same-site request sending. This means that any forged requests via an XSS vulnerability will result in these requests originating from the application. Cross-site request sending at this point is not needed nor enabled.
Being vulnerable to XSS is a bigger problem.
Even with synchronizer tokens in place, an attacker can use the injected JavaScript to simply read the tokens and use them in same-site AJAX requests.
Keep in mind that although the targeted application is free from abusable client-side code and XSS vulnerabilities, these issues can still exist on subdomains and different ports. Requests from these sources will be same-site even though they are not same-origin.
Lax
When the SameSite attribute is set to Lax, the browser will send the cookie for same-site requests and cross-site requests that are considered “safe”. These are GET requests initiated by a user’s top-level navigation (e.g., clicking on a hyperlink). The cookie will not be sent for cross-site requests initiated by third-party sites, such as POST requests via AJAX.
This means that similarly to ‘Strict’, ‘Lax’ would also deny the following scenario:
But, in contrast, it would allow:
Fault 5
As with ‘Strict’, we must be cautious of all client-side JavaScript functionalities, but also any state-changing actions that can be performed via the GET request method. During testing, we find it common that the request method can simply be rewritten into a GET from a POST, rendering any ‘SameSite=Lax’ protections ineffective, provided that no other CSRF defenses are in place.
The “Lax + POST” intervention
Chrome automatically sets the SameSite attribute to ‘Lax’ for cookies that don’t have this attribute explicitly defined. Compared to a manually set ‘Lax’ value, Chrome’s defaulting to ‘Lax’ comes with temporary exception: a two-minute time window where cross-site POST requests are permitted. This intervention is to account for some POST-based login flows, such as certain single sign-on implementations.
Fault 6
If both the attacker and the targeted victim act quickly on a “Lax + POST” intervention, exploitation becomes possible within this brief time window.
A more realistic scenario, however, would be if the attacker somehow could force the application to first issue the victim a new cookie, renewing the two-minute window, and then incorporating the renewal into a regular cross-site POST exploit.
None
Setting the SameSite attribute to ‘None’ allows the cookie to be sent with all requests, including cross-site requests. While there are valid reasons to set a ‘None’ value, protecting against CSRF attacks is not one of them. Exercise caution when using ‘None’ values in this context.
Note that for ‘None’ to be explicitly set, the secure attribute must also be set on the cookie.
Find risky vulnerabilities that automated scanners miss
Regular pen testing is the best way to strengthen your web application’s overall security. Outpost24’s Pen Testing-as-a-Service (PTaaS) solution, SWAT, delivers continuous monitoring of your internet facing web applications via a SaaS delivery model. Unlike fully automated testing, our highly-skilled pen testers provide custom and in-depth analysis to uncover severe vulnerabilities. This can protect you from vulnerabilities such as CSRF attacks that automated scanners may miss. Speak to an expert to arrange a live demo.
About the Author
