Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Exploiting JavaScript's eval() method

Many developers believe that JavaScript's eval() method should be avoided. This idea makes sense from a design perspective. It is often used as an ugly workaround when a simpler, better option is available.

However, I do not understand the concerns about security vulnerabilities. Certainly, running eval() gives the hacker the ability to run any JavaScript code that you can run.

But can't they do this anyway? In Chrome, at least, the Developer Tools allow the end-user to run their own JavaScript. How is eval() more dangerous than the Developer Tools?

like image 895
Jared Nielsen Avatar asked Aug 12 '13 14:08

Jared Nielsen


People also ask

Why is eval a security risk?

eval() is a dangerous function, which executes the code it's passed with the privileges of the caller. If you run eval() with a string that could be affected by a malicious party, you may end up running malicious code on the user's machine with the permissions of your webpage / extension.

Is eval is a vulnerable?

The danger of eval() is that an attacker may be able to manipulate data that is eventually run through eval() in other ways. If the eval() 'd string comes from an HTTP connection, the attacker may perform a MITM attack and modify the string.

What can I use instead of eval in JavaScript?

An alternative to eval is Function() . Just like eval() , Function() takes some expression as a string for execution, except, rather than outputting the result directly, it returns an anonymous function to you that you can call. `Function() is a faster and more secure alternative to eval().

What is eval injection?

Eval injection is the injection technique by which, the attacker can send custom URL to the eval() function. this function can also run operating system commands. This server does not properly validate user inputs in the page parameter.


2 Answers

As B-Con mentioned, the attacker is not the one sitting at the computer so could be using the eval() already in your script as a means to pass malicious code to your site in order to exploit the current user's session in someway (e.g. a user following a malicious link).

The danger of eval() is when it is executed on unsanitised values, and can lead to a DOM Based XSS vulnerability.

e.g. consider the following code in your HTML (rather contrived, but it demonstrates the issue I hope)

<script>

eval('alert("Your query string was ' + unescape(document.location.search) + '");');

</script>

Now if the query string is ?foo you simply get an alert dialog stating the following: Your query string was ?foo

But what this code will allow a user to do is redirect users from their site to a URL such as http://www.example.com/page.htm?hello%22);alert(document.cookie+%22, where www.example.com is your website.

This modifies the code that is executed by eval() to

alert("Your query string was hello");
alert(document.cookie+"");

(New lines added by me for clarity). Now this could be doing something more malicious than showing the current cookie value, as the required code is simply passed on the query string by the attacker's link in encoded form. For example, it could be sending the cookie to the attacker's domain in a resource request, enabling the authentication session to be hijacked.

This applies to any value from user/external input that is unsanitised and executed directly in the eval(), not just the query string as shown here.

like image 142
SilverlightFox Avatar answered Sep 19 '22 13:09

SilverlightFox


An attacker doesn't have access to the user's browser's Developer Tools. The attacker is likely not the user sitting at the computer.

The danger of eval() is that an attacker may be able to manipulate data that is eventually run through eval() in other ways. If the eval()'d string comes from an HTTP connection, the attacker may perform a MITM attack and modify the string. If the string comes from external storage, the attacker may have manipulated the data in that storage location. Etc.

like image 25
B-Con Avatar answered Sep 19 '22 13:09

B-Con