Home » Kerio User Forums » Kerio Connect » HTTPS header (HTTP Security Header Not Detected)
  •  
alam@egiscanada.ca

Messages: 2
Karma: 0
Send a private message to this user
Hi there,

I am hoping to get some advice or solution for this:

We run a PCI compliance scan every month and we noticed this threat came up:

HTTP Security Header Not Detected port 443/tcp
PCI COMPLIANCE STATUS

PCI Severity:
The QID adheres to the PCI requirements based on the CVSS basescore.
THREAT:
This QID reports the absence of the following HTTP headers according to CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure:
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as
a "UI redress attack", allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on
another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page.
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSSProtection:
0; disables this functionality.
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server
returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIMEtype.
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing
attacks and data injection attacks.
Strict-Transport-Security: The HTTP Strict-Transport-Security response header (HSTS) is a security feature that lets a web site tell browsers that it
should only be communicated with using HTTPS, instead of using HTTP.
QID Detection Logic:
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.
Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors - This directive specifies valid parents that may embed a page using frame, iframe, object, embed, or
applet
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the
page (remove the unsafe parts).
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack
is detected.
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the
violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.
X-XSS-Protection: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy: <policy-directive>; <policy-directive>
A valid HSTS directive Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=<expire-time>; [; includeSubDomains][; preload]
NOTE: All report-only directives (where applicable) are considered invalid.

***update***

The scan suggests a solution but I am not sure how I should approach this. Any help would be appreciated:

SOLUTION:
CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that
provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A "missing" protection mechanism occurs when the application does not
define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An "insufficient" protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against
the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an "ignored" mechanism occurs when a mechanism is
available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.
Customers are advised to set proper X-Frame-Options, X-XSS-Protection, Content Security Policy, X-Content-Type-Options and Strict-Transport-
Security HTTP response headers.
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:
X-Frame-Options:
Scan Results page 7
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN
IIS: <HTTPPROTOCOL><CUSTOMHEADERS><ADD NAME="X-Frame-Options" VALUE="SAMEORIGIN"></ADD></CUSTOMHEADERS></
HTTPPROTOCOL>
X-XSS-Protection:
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection "1; mode=block"
PHP: header("X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block");
X-Content-Type-Options:
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only.
The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy "script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'"
IIS: <SYSTEM.WEBSERVER><HTTPPROTOCOL><CUSTOMHEADERS><ADD NAME="Content-Security-Policy" VALUE="default-src 'self';"></
ADD></CUSTOMHEADERS></HTTPPROTOCOL></SYSTEM.WEBSERVER>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy "default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';
HTTP Strict-Transport-Security:
Apache: Header always set Strict-Transport-Security "max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains"
Nginx: add_header Strict-Transport-Security max-age=31536000;

[Updated on: Mon, 19 February 2018 17:45]

Previous Topic: Migrating to Mailstore to Bigger Storage
Next Topic: Limiting number of recipients per email
Goto Forum:
  


Disclaimer:
Kerio discussion forums are intended for open communication between forum members and may contain information and material posted by members which may be useful in learning about Kerio products. The discussion forums are not intended to provide technical support for any specific product. Any information implied or expressed in the discussion forums is that of the posting member. Kerio is in no way responsible for the information posted in the forums, or its accuracy. Kerio employees may participate in the discussions, but their postings do not represent an offical position of the company on any issues raised or discussed. Kerio reserves the right to monitor and maintain the forums to promote free and accurate exchange of information.

Current Time: Fri Dec 14 14:17:26 CET 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.93361 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.
Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.4.