Beyond Authentication — Exploiting a Nasty IDOR in Profile Update Functionality
嗯,用户让我帮忙总结一篇文章,控制在一百个字以内,而且不需要特定的开头。首先,我得仔细阅读这篇文章,理解它的主要内容。 文章讲的是一个安全漏洞,叫做不安全的直接对象引用(IDOR)。作者在审计一个企业门户时发现了这个漏洞。攻击者可以通过简单的输入引发严重的后果,比如接管内部员工的身份信息。具体来说,攻击者利用API获取用户的唯一标识符xid,然后通过修改请求中的xid参数来更新其他人的资料。 接下来,我需要提炼出关键点:IDOR漏洞、API泄露xid、攻击者接管员工资料、强调验证用户权限的重要性。然后把这些点浓缩成一句话,确保不超过一百个字。 最后,检查一下是否符合用户的要求,没有使用“文章内容总结”之类的开头,并且语言简洁明了。 </think> 文章描述了一次通过API漏洞实现的Insecure Direct Object Reference(IDOR)攻击。攻击者利用API泄露的用户唯一标识符(xid),无需猜测或暴力破解即可获取高价值员工信息,并通过篡改请求参数接管其账户。该漏洞暴露了身份验证机制中缺乏对客户端提供的对象引用的有效校验问题。 2025-12-13 07:57:6 Author: infosecwriteups.com(查看原文) 阅读量:7 收藏

Munna✨

It wasn’t a complex SQL injection or a tricky deserialization flaw. It was a failure to ask one simple question: “Are you really authorized to modify that object?”

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Every hacker knows the feeling: that moment when a simple, almost trivial input causes a cascade of unintended, catastrophic events on a production system. I recently found myself in that sweet spot while auditing a major corporate portal, leading to one of the cleanest Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerabilities I’ve ever seen.

This vulnerability didn’t just expose user data — it allowed any basic user to take over the identity, contact details, and designation of internal employees, including management and HR.

The Subtle Leak That Handed Me the Keys

But the xid not guessable so easily.

So, my first target was the application’s user validation logic. Most sites have an API that checks if an email exists for a “Forgot Password” function. This portal’s endpoint was promisingly named: /api/v1/user/checkAccountExist.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

I started probing with public emails, and I could guess that it is so easy because of the contact us page (almost 50+ employees’ emails in my hand): [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]), [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).

And that’s where the developer made their first critical mistake.

When I hit a valid email, the API didn’t just say “Yes, this account exists.” Instead, it generously included the user’s primary key — the xid. This unique identifier is the application's direct object reference to the profile.

I didn’t need to guess. I didn’t need brute force. By checking a few known corporate emails, I had instantly and silently generated a verified list of high-value internal employee xids. I now had the victims' coordinates.

The Easiest Escalation I’ve Ever Seen

With my victim’s xid notes (let's call it VICTIM_99999), I moved to the main event: the Profile Update section.

  1. I logged in with my account.
  2. I opened my own profile settings and changed my name to “Tester.”
  3. I intercepted the request in Burp Suite.

The request body, intended to update my profile, looked perfectly innocent:

{
"name": "Tester",
"mobileNumber: "323232323",
"company": "ccccccc",
"designation": "Researcher",
// ... other update fields
}

Now, the chilling part. The server was clearly trusting the xid parameter provided in the POST request to decide who to update. The authentication token in the header proved I was logged in, but the server never checked if the token’s owner (MY_XID_12345) matched the body’s target (MY_XID_12345).

The Bypass: I simply deleted my own ID and inserted the CEO/HR/CISO's xid I had just enumerated.

Field Original Value (My Profile) to New Value (CEO’s Profile)”

Get Munna✨’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

xid”"MY_XID_12345" to "VICTIM_99999"

"name""Tester" to "Evil Impersonator"

"mobileNumber""1234..." to "9990001112"

“company”: “dddddddddd”,

“designation”: “CEO/HR/CISO”,

and so on.......

I hit Forward.

Result: Instant Success. HTTP 200.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

I had just leveraged my privilege session to update the profile of a CEO/HR/CISO’s. The changes were immediate and persistent. I could log out and verify that the employee’s official details (through the CEO/HR/CISO’s user name that leaked in response)— Name, Contact Number, Company Affiliation — were all now fraudulent.

What Trusting the Client Costs You

This is the quintessential IDOR scenario, packaged neatly with a perfect enumeration vector. The impact wasn’t just “data exposure;” it was identity corruption.

Imagine an attacker changing the phone number of the Head of HR on the official portal and then calling employees, pretending to be them. The potential for large-scale social engineering and internal fraud is immense.

The Developer’s Golden Rule:

If you are building an API that modifies an object, NEVER, EVER rely on the object reference (like xid) provided by the client's payload.

  1. Retrieve the User ID: Get the authenticated user’s ID only from the secure session token (JWT payload, Session Store). This ID is your source of truth.
  2. Ignore the Client ID: Discard or ignore the xid provided in the request body. If the user is updating their own profile, the ID from the session is the only ID you need.

This vulnerability was a masterclass in why we should trust our session state and treat all client input as hostile. It’s a vivid reminder that sometimes, the most sophisticated attacks exploit the most simplistic coding oversights.


文章来源: https://infosecwriteups.com/beyond-authentication-exploiting-a-nasty-idor-in-profile-update-functionality-25740fb56b05?source=rss----7b722bfd1b8d---4
如有侵权请联系:admin#unsafe.sh