AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Burp suite edition v1.7.051/17/2024 ![]() For example, some web application firewalls (lamely) filter input that matches or N=N and cause a different response than is observed for or N=M. This granularity avoids the limitations described above and dramatically improves the accuracy of blind scan checks in many cases.Īdditionally, several of the payloads used in diff-based scan checks have been enhanced to ensure that observed differences are indeed the result of injecting into the intended technology, rather than other input-dependent logic. Variations are separately analyzed for attributes such as tag names, HTTP status code, line count, HTML comments, and many others. Situations where application responses vary due to non-deterministic or unrelated factors can lead to large variations that trigger the fuzzy diffing threshold for all payloads, thereby masking other variations that depend systematically on the supplied payload.īurp now uses a more granular diffing logic that takes into account all of the response attributes that were previously exposed in the analyzeResponseVariations API and used in our backslash powered scanning research. ![]() ![]() Small variations that are insignificant in the context of the whole response content are liable not to trigger the fuzzy diffing threshold, despite being highly significant when their precise syntactic context is taken into account.This approach has various limitations that can lead to false negatives, such as: Previously, Burp used a fuzzy diffing algorithm that analyzed the whole content of responses. Various Burp Scanner checks involve sending pairs of payloads (such as or 1=1 and or 1=2) and looking for a systematic difference in the resulting responses. This release considerably enhances the detection of blind injection vulnerabilities based on response diffing.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |