hsecscan

A security scanner for HTTP response headers.

Requirements

• Python 2.x

Python Modules

• os.path
• argparse
• sqlite3
• urlparse
• urllib2
• urllib
• json
• ssl

Install

$ pip install hsecscan

Usage

$ hsecscan 
usage: hsecscan.py [-h] [-P] [-p] [-H Header] [-u URL] [-R] [-i]
                   [-U User-Agent] [-D DBFILE] [-d 'POST data'] [-x PROXY]
                   [-a]

A security scanner for HTTP response headers.

optional arguments:
  -h, --help            show this help message and exit
  -P, --database        Print the entire response headers database.
  -p, --headers         Print only the enabled response headers from database.
  -H Header, --header Header
                        Print details for a specific Header (example: Strict-
                        Transport-Security).
  -u URL, --URL URL     The URL to be scanned.
  -R, --redirect        Print redirect headers.
  -i, --insecure        Disable certificate verification.
  -U User-Agent, --useragent User-Agent
                        Set the User-Agent request header (default: hsecscan).
  -D DBFILE, --dbfile DBFILE
                        Set the database file (default: hsecscan.db).
  -d 'POST data', --postdata 'POST data'
                        Set the POST data (between single quotes) otherwise
                        will be a GET (example: '{ "q":"query string",
                        "foo":"bar" }').
  -x PROXY, --proxy PROXY
                        Set the proxy server (example: 192.168.1.1:8080).
  -a, --all             Print details for all response headers. Good for check
                        the related RFC.

Example

$ hsecscan -i -u https://google.com
>> RESPONSE INFO <<
URL: https://www.google.com.br/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=GF5HV4ucH7DL8geg-aK4Dw
Code: 200
Headers:
 Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 20:35:36 GMT
 Expires: -1
 Cache-Control: private, max-age=0
 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
 P3P: CP="This is not a P3P policy! See https://www.google.com/support/accounts/answer/151657?hl=en for more info."
 Server: gws
 X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block
 X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN
 Set-Cookie: NID=79=hDENeVI81zBYDtmqeCKAc5mxg6AQ-S24ahNqZ8El37rlJmYwUtgJg4vXAya7jKSyB2VqYI33JlLPacGonMPajpcDpUkb7mMtWMbNwIZQ8CyQBA1qXsRhjlLXU_4WExlI; expires=Fri, 25-Nov-2016 20:35:36 GMT; path=/; domain=.google.com.br; HttpOnly
 Alternate-Protocol: 443:quic
 Alt-Svc: quic=":443"; ma=2592000; v="34,33,32,31,30,29,28,27,26,25"
 Accept-Ranges: none
 Vary: Accept-Encoding
 Connection: close

>> RESPONSE HEADERS DETAILS <<
Header Field Name: X-XSS-Protection
Value: 1; mode=block
Reference: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2008/07/02/ie8-security-part-iv-the-xss-filter.aspx
Security Description: This header enables the Cross-site scripting (XSS) filter built into most recent web browsers. It's usually enabled by default anyway, so the role of this header is to re-enable the filter for this particular website if it was disabled by the user. This header is supported in IE 8+, and in Chrome (not sure which versions). The anti-XSS filter was added in Chrome 4. Its unknown if that version honored this header.
Security Reference: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/List_of_useful_HTTP_headers
Recommendations: Use "X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block" whenever is possible (ref. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/archive/2011/01/31/controlling-the-internet-explorer-xss-filter-with-the-x-xss-protection-http-header.aspx).
CWE: CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
CWE URL: https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html

Header Field Name: Set-Cookie
Value: NID=79=hDENeVI81zBYDtmqeCKAc5mxg6AQ-S24ahNqZ8El37rlJmYwUtgJg4vXAya7jKSyB2VqYI33JlLPacGonMPajpcDpUkb7mMtWMbNwIZQ8CyQBA1qXsRhjlLXU_4WExlI; expires=Fri, 25-Nov-2016 20:35:36 GMT; path=/; domain=.google.com.br; HttpOnly
Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265
Security Description: Cookies have a number of security pitfalls. In particular, cookies encourage developers to rely on ambient authority for authentication, often becoming vulnerable to attacks such as cross-site request forgery. Also, when storing session identifiers in cookies, developers often create session fixation vulnerabilities. Transport-layer encryption, such as that employed in HTTPS, is insufficient to prevent a network attacker from obtaining or altering a victim's cookies because the cookie protocol itself has various vulnerabilities. In addition, by default, cookies do not provide confidentiality or integrity from network attackers, even when used in conjunction with HTTPS.
Security Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265#section-8
Recommendations: Please at least read these references: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265#section-8 and https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Session_Management_Cheat_Sheet#Cookies.
CWE: CWE-614: Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute
CWE URL: https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/614.html

Header Field Name: Accept-Ranges
Value: none
Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7233#section-2.3
Security Description: Unconstrained multiple range requests are susceptible to denial-of-service attacks because the effort required to request many overlapping ranges of the same data is tiny compared to the time, memory, and bandwidth consumed by attempting to serve the requested data in many parts.
Security Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7233#section-6
Recommendations: Servers ought to ignore, coalesce, or reject egregious range requests, such as requests for more than two overlapping ranges or for many small ranges in a single set, particularly when the ranges are requested out of order for no apparent reason.
CWE: CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption ('Resource Exhaustion')
CWE URL: https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/400.html

Header Field Name: Server
Value: gws
Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-7.4.2
Security Description: Overly long and detailed Server field values increase response latency and potentially reveal internal implementation details that might make it (slightly) easier for attackers to find and exploit known security holes.
Security Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-7.4.2
Recommendations: An origin server SHOULD NOT generate a Server field containing needlessly fine-grained detail and SHOULD limit the addition of subproducts by third parties.
CWE: CWE-200: Information Exposure
CWE URL: https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/200.html

Header Field Name: Cache-Control
Value: private, max-age=0
Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-5.2
Security Description: Caches expose additional potential vulnerabilities, since the contents of the cache represent an attractive target for malicious exploitation.  Because cache contents persist after an HTTP request is complete, an attack on the cache can reveal information long after a user believes that the information has been removed from the network.  Therefore, cache contents need to be protected as sensitive information.
Security Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-8
Recommendations: Do not store unnecessarily sensitive information in the cache.
CWE: CWE-524: Information Exposure Through Caching
CWE URL: https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/524.html

Header Field Name: P3P
Value: CP="This is not a P3P policy! See https://www.google.com/support/accounts/answer/151657?hl=en for more info."
Reference: http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P11/#syntax_ext
Security Description: While P3P itself does not include security mechanisms, it is intended to be used in conjunction with security tools. Users' personal information should always be protected with reasonable security safeguards in keeping with the sensitivity of the information.
Security Reference: http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P11/#principles_security
Recommendations: -
CWE: -
CWE URL: -

Header Field Name: Content-Type
Value: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-3.1.1.5
Security Description: In practice, resource owners do not always properly configure their origin server to provide the correct Content-Type for a given representation, with the result that some clients will examine a payload's content and override the specified type. Clients that do so risk drawing incorrect conclusions, which might expose additional security risks (e.g., "privilege escalation").
Security Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-3.1.1.5
Recommendations: Properly configure their origin server to provide the correct Content-Type for a given representation.
CWE: CWE-430: Deployment of Wrong Handler
CWE URL: https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/430.html

Header Field Name: X-Frame-Options
Value: SAMEORIGIN
Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7034
Security Description: The use of "X-Frame-Options" allows a web page from host B to declare that its content (for example, a button, links, text, etc.) must not be displayed in a frame (<frame> or <iframe>) of another page (e.g., from host A). This is done by a policy declared in the HTTP header and enforced by browser implementations.
Security Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7034
Recommendations:  In 2009 and 2010, many browser vendors ([Microsoft-X-Frame-Options] and [Mozilla-X-Frame-Options]) introduced the use of a non-standard HTTP [RFC2616] header field "X-Frame-Options" to protect against clickjacking. Please check here https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Clickjacking_Defense_Cheat_Sheet what's the best option for your case.
CWE: CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure
CWE