We ran the Fortify scan and had some Access Control: Database issues. The code is getting the textbox value and setting it to a string variable. In this case, it's passing the value from the TextBox to the stored procedure in a database. Any ideas on how I can get around this Access Control: Database issue?
Without proper access control, the method ExecuteNonQuery() in DataBase.cs can execute a SQL statement on line 320 that contains an attacker-controlled primary key, thereby allowing the attacker to access unauthorized records.
Source: Tool.ascx.cs:591 System.Web.UI.WebControls.TextBox.get_Text()
rptItem.FindControl("lblClmInvalidEntry").Visible = false;
ToolDataAccess.UpdateToolData(strSDN, strSSNum, strRANC, strAdvRecDate, strAdvSubDate, strClmRecDate, strClmAuth, strClmSubDate, strAdvAuth, txtNoteEntry.Text);
Sink: DataBase.cs:278
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlParameterCollection.Add()
// Add parameters
foreach (SqlParameter parameter in parameters)
cmd.Parameters.Add(parameter);
Answer
The point of "Access Control: Database" is where it isn't being specific enough in the query and so could potentially allow a user to see information that they're not supposed to. An easy example of this vulnerability would be a payroll database where there is a textbox that says the ID of the employee and gives their salary, this could potentially allow the user to change the ID and see the salary of other employees. Another example where this is often intended functionality is in a website URL where the product ID is used in a parameter, meaning a user could go through every product you have on your site. But as this only allows users to see information they're supposed to be able to, it's not particularly a security issue.
For instance:
"SELECT account_balance FROM accounts WHERE account_number = " + $input_from_attacker + ";"
// even if we safely build the query above, preventing change to the query structure,
// the attacker can still send someone else's account number, and read Grandma's balance!
As this is pretty context based, it's difficult to determine statically so there are lots of examples where Fortify may catch this but it's actually intended functionality. That's not to say the tool is broken, it's just one of the limitations of static analysis and depending on what your program is supposed to be doing it may or may not be intended. If this is intended to work like this, then I would suggest auditing it as not an issue or suppressing the issue. If you can see that this is definitely an issue and users can see information that they shouldn't be able to, then the stored procedure needs to be more specific so that users can only see information they should be able to. However SCA will likely still pick this up in a latter scan so you would still then need to audit it as fixed and no longer an issue.