CWE-1021Improper Restriction of Rendered UI Layers or Frames

Description

Common consequences· 1

• Access Control — Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Bypass Protection Mechanism, Read Application Data, Modify Application Data
  An attacker can trick a user into performing actions that are masked and hidden from the user's view. The impact varies widely, depending on the functionality of the underlying application. For example, in a social media application, clickjacking could be used to trick the user into changing privacy settings.

Potential mitigations· 4

• [Implementation]
• [Implementation]
• [Implementation]This defense-in-depth technique can be used to prevent the improper usage of frames in web applications. It prioritizes the valid sources of data to be loaded into the application through the usage of declarative policies. Based on which implementation of Content Security Policy is in use, the developer should use the "frame-ancestors" directive or the "frame-src" directive to mitigate this weakness. Both directives allow for the placement of restrictions when it comes to allowing embedded content.
• [Implementation]In addition to frames or iframes as previously mentioned, the web application is expected to place restrictions on whether it is allowed to be rendered within objects, embed, or applet elements.

Related CAPEC attack patterns· 7

Exploits (incoming)7

(incoming)2

Related by meaning· 6

Nearest entities by semantic similarity across the cs-graph corpus.