Improper Restriction of Rendered UI Layers or Frames

Opis

The web application does not restrict or incorrectly restricts frame objects or UI layers that belong to another application or domain.

Inne nazwy

Clickjacking

UI Redress Attack

Tapjacking

"Tapjacking" is similar to clickjacking, except it is used for mobile applications in which the user "taps" the application instead of performing a mouse click.

Skutki

• 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.

Zapobieganie

• Implementation

  The use of X-Frame-Options allows developers of web content to restrict the usage of their application within the form of overlays, frames, or iFrames. The developer can indicate from which domains can frame the content.

  The concept of X-Frame-Options is well documented, but implementation of this protection mechanism is in development to cover gaps. There is a need for allowing frames from multiple domains.

• Implementation

  A developer can use a "frame-breaker" script in each page that should not be framed. This is very helpful for legacy browsers that do not support X-Frame-Options security feature previously mentioned.

  It is also important to note that this tactic has been circumvented or bypassed. Improper usage of frames can persist in the web application through nested frames. The "frame-breaking" script does not intuitively account for multiple nested frames that can be presented to the user.

• 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.

Przykłady podatności

• CVE-2017-7440 E-mail preview feature in a desktop application allows clickjacking attacks via a crafted e-mail message
• CVE-2017-5697 Hardware/firmware product has insufficient clickjacking protection in its web user interface
• CVE-2017-4015 Clickjacking in data-loss prevention product via HTTP response header.
• CVE-2016-2496 Tapjacking in permission dialog for mobile OS allows access of private storage using a partially-overlapping window.
• CVE-2015-1241 Tapjacking in web browser related to page navigation and touch/gesture events.
• CVE-2017-0492 System UI in mobile OS allows a malicious application to create a UI overlay of the entire screen to gain privileges.

Słabość nadrzędna

• CWE-441 Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')
• CWE-610 Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere
• CWE-451 User Interface (UI) Misrepresentation of Critical Information

Kiedy powstaje

• Implementation

Dotyczy

Not Language-Specific, Not Technology-Specific, Web Based

Źródła

1. Clickjacking — Wikipedia, 2025
2. Clickjacking - OWASP — OWASP
3. Clickjacking For Shells — Andrew Horton
4. SecTheory — Internet Security
5. Content Security Policy Level 3 — W3C