I'm working on project and then suddenly hit a roadblock.I am, trying to code away in Java, when I encounter this pesky little error called "unsafe object binding." It's like the universe decided to throw me a curveball right in the middle of my coding groove.

In Java, when you're binding objects together, there's a chance things might get a bit uncertain. This error pops up when Java detects that I'm trying to bind objects in a way that could potentially lead to some security vulnerabilities.

So, when did this error decide to rear its ugly head? Right in the thick of things, of course! Just when I'm in the zone, trying to make my code work like a charm, this error comes knocking on my door, ready to ruin my day.

In this blog post, I'm diving deep into the possible solutions for this error. From tightening up my object bindings to exploring alternative approaches, I'm leaving no stone unturned in my quest to squash this bug once and for all. 

Here's a example to fix the "unsafe object binding" issue in Java:

import java.io.Serializable;

public class Product implements Serializable {
    private String name;
    private double price;

    public Product(String name, double price) {
        this.name = name;
        this.price = price;
    }

    // Getter and setter methods for name and price

    public String getName() {
        return name;
    }

    public void setName(String name) {
        this.name = name;
    }

    public double getPrice() {
        return price;
    }

    public void setPrice(double price) {
        this.price = price;
    }
}
In this example, we have a simple Java class Product with name and price fields, along with their getter and setter methods. This class also implements the Serializable interface.

The principles for fixing the "unsafe object binding" issue remain the same as outlined in the previous solution:

  • Input Validation
  • Sanitization
  • Whitelisting
  • Limiting Object Scope
  • Avoiding Reflection
You can apply these principles to ensure secure object binding and prevent potential security vulnerabilities when working with the Product class in your Java application.

Here's a solution to fix the "unsafe object binding" issue in Java:


        import java.io.Serializable;

        public class Product implements Serializable {
            private String name;
            private double price;

            public Product(String name, double price) {
                this.name = name;
                this.price = price;
            }

            // Getter and setter methods for name and price

            public String getName() {
                return name;
            }

            public void setName(String name) {
                this.name = name;
            }

            public double getPrice() {
                return price;
            }

            public void setPrice(double price) {
                this.price = price;
            }
        }
    

To prevent unsafe object binding, ensure proper input validation, sanitization, and whitelisting techniques are employed.

Example of  "Unsafe Object Binding in Checkmarx scan"

[HttpPost, ActionName("Delete")]
[ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
public ActionResult DeleteConfirmed(int id)
{
    if (id > 0) // Fix for CheckMarx: Unsafe Object Binding
    {
        Product product = db.Products.Find(id);
        Product productDel = db.Products.Remove(product);
        
        try
        {
            if (productDel != null && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(productDel.ProductName))
            {
                db.SaveChanges();
            }
            
            return RedirectToAction("Index");
        }
        catch (DataException ex)
        {
            throw ex;
        }
    }
    else
    {
        return new HttpStatusCodeResult(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest);
    }
}
Above code give error : The DeleteConfirmed at VCSSource/Application/Controllers/ProductController.cs in line 110 may unintentionally allow setting the value of SaveChanges in DeleteConfirmed, in the object VCSSource/Application/Controllers/ProductController.cs at line 180 
And the problem highlighted is that we accept an integer ID as input and directly manipulate that ID without any additional validation meaning anyone can access this endpoint with that ID and delete the corresponding item.

Part of this issue is that it becomes effortless for an attacker to cycle through integers, starting from 1, and delete anything in the Product.

You need to either classify this as 'not exploitable' if you comprehend how this endpoint is secured within the application, or potentially implement an alternative method to look up this object for instance, a GUID identifier on the table and have the method accept the GUID identifier instead of the integer primary key.

Due to @RequestBoby

Interestingly, we found that the issue doesn't occur when using @RequestParam instead. After investigating further, we discovered that the problem arises when binding the request body directly to an object using @RequestBody.

To address this issue, we decided to handle the request body manually using HttpServletRequest and ObjectMapper. By doing so, we bypassed the use of @RequestBody and directly read the request input stream to deserialize the JSON payload into our Product object.

import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest;
import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.PostMapping;
import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.RestController;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.ObjectMapper;

@RestController
public class ProductController {

    private final ObjectMapper mapper;

    public ProductController(ObjectMapper mapper) {
        this.mapper = mapper;
    }

    @PostMapping("/processProduct")
    public void processProduct(HttpServletRequest request) {
        try {
            Product product = mapper.readValue(request.getInputStream(), Product.class);
            // Process the product object as needed
        } catch (Exception e) {
            // Handle any exceptions
        }
    }
}
By manually handling the request body, we have more control over the deserialization process and can address any potential security vulnerabilities more effectively.
This approach allows us to bypass the issues associated with @RequestBody while still achieving the desired functionality.
However, it's essential to handle exceptions gracefully and ensure proper error handling to maintain the reliability and security of our application.

Facing Error when attempting to set data to an object annotated with @RequestBody


We encountered same error when attempting to set data to an object annotated with @RequestBody, as described in the error message. The issue arises when trying to directly modify the object annotated with @RequestBody using setter methods. Instead of directly setting additional values to the object annotated with @RequestBody, we opted to use a separate user-defined variable to store the value obtained from request parameters, headers, or path variables. We then passed this variable along with the @RequestBody object to the service method.

requestBodyVariable.setAdditionalValue(valueFromRequestParamOrPathVariable); // should not be used , callServiceMethod should use

@PostMapping("/processData")
public ResponseEntity<?> processData(@RequestBody RequestBodyVariable requestBodyVariable, @RequestParam String valueFromRequestParamOrPathVariable) {
    try {
        // Instead of setting additional values directly to the requestBodyVariable, we use a separate variable
        // to store the value obtained from request parameters, headers, or path variables
        // and pass it along with the requestBodyVariable to the service method
        // requestBodyVariable.setAdditionalValue(valueFromRequestParamOrPathVariable);
        service.callServiceMethod(requestBodyVariable, valueFromRequestParamOrPathVariable);
        
        // Return appropriate response
        return ResponseEntity.ok().build();
    } catch (Exception e) {
        // Handle any exceptions
        return ResponseEntity.status(HttpStatus.INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR).body("An error occurred while processing the data.");
    }
}