- From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:36:53 -0500
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
As per ACTION-285, I have compiled a list of security issues for SPARQL Update: * Write access to data makes it inherently vulnerable to malicious access. Standard access and authentication techniques should be used in any networked environment. In particular, HTTPS should be used, especially when implementing the SPARQL HTTP-based protocols. (ie. encryption with challenge/response based password presentation, encrypted session tokens, etc). Some of the weak points addressed by HTTPS are: authentication, active session integrity between client and server, preventing replays, preventing continuation of defunct sessions. * SPARQL Update incurs all of the security concerns of SPARQL Query. In particular, stores which treat URIs as dereferencable need to protect against dereferenced URIs from being used to invoke cross-site scripting attacks. * Some stores may have different permissions on various graphs. Update operations that legally modify one graph may try to use those access permissions to escalate permissions on another graph referenced in the operation or an embedded query. Isolating access will be important in this scenario. * Ensure correct escaping of literal strings to avoid injection attacks. This is more of a user issue though a poor parser can exacerbate the problem. Also many stores include a web front end, which may act as a client vulnerable to this problem. * URIs in queries can contain escaped payloads using %HH. This interacts with the other security concerns surrounding URIs, as it can be difficult to detect malicious operations encoded within URIs. * Update operations must not be accessible with GET requests. Other than breaking HTTP semantics and being outside of the SPARQL protocol specification, this permits embedding an Update into a URI that is accessed inside another operation. This list is not complete, nor do I believe it to be possible to create a complete list. I would appreciate comments on the above points, plus any additions that should be included. Regards, Paul Gearon
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 18:37:25 UTC