The Value of Web Exploitation

Is the exploitation of web vulnerabilities worth the trouble? Does it create unnecessary risks that should be avoided? Why exploit flaws anyway? This is not a black and white circumstance. Every situation is unique. But here’s what I know. The exploitation of web security flaws such as Cross-Site Scripting, SQL injection and Cross-Site request forgery is arguably the most valuable part of my assessments. Web exploitation can provide actual data, screenshots and other evidence which are great for getting management, developer and user buy-in on the issues. Otherwise, you may simply be running scans and making dangerous assumptions about what can or cannot be taken advantage of.

In many situations, all it takes is exploiting one missing web server patch, one SQL injection flaw or cracking a set of web passwords to show that problems exist in the respective areas. You may not need to exploit every flaw on every system to demonstrate what’s weak and what can happen. For certain projects, exploiting every single flaw on every single page could take too long and cost too much.

You have to ask yourself what’s really needed? What’s the ultimate goal of your security assessment? Is it to find some basic issues running basic scans or is it to completely vet a website or application and show exactly what can happen when things go awry? There is a ton of value in web exploitation…if it meshes with the overall project goals.

Vulnerability “exploitation” seems like a bad word that’s going to leak data, crash servers and cause business continuity problems but it really doesn’t have to. I’ve found that exploitation of web flaws is actually less risky than running the actual scans themselves. Interestingly, I’ve never had a problem running web exploits but automated scans have certainly created issues. Then again, unless the specific requirements call for it, I only run exploits that are not designed to create denial of service conditions. Your situation may be different.

In the end, if a web exploit (or even a scan) knocks over an application or its associated server(s), that may be a good indicator that you need to look even deeper. In the interest of minimizing problems, some people will just pretend the server or application doesn’t exist and leave it be. Sure, the problems are minimized but the security flaws are still there! Two wrongs don’t make a right.

For some people – especially IT auditors or compliance managers – exploitation of web flaws may be new territory. That’s fine. I just encourage people to really think things through when scoping web security assessments projects. Know all the facts and the possible outcomes and then dig in as deeply as possible. That’s the only way you’re going to find the flaws that matter and get people on your side to do something about them.