Proceedings of 2013 3rd International Conference on Computer Science and Network Technology 2013
DOI: 10.1109/iccsnt.2013.6967063
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Research on developing a lab environment for cross site request forgery: Attack and defense education in higher vocational colleges

Abstract: Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) is among the most exploited web security vulnerabilities. Yet it has received comparatively less attention. It's a must for web site administrators to protect their web sites from CSRF attacks. In order to let the students master the attack and defense skills of CSRF, it's essential to let them have the opportunity to truly practice the attacks as hackers do, and to practice the defenses as web site administrators do. Yet we haven't seen much research done in the area of devel… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 5 publications
(7 reference statements)
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some researchers have analyzed so-called brute force attacks and methods of retrofitting against them (Cho et al, 2011;Cho et al, 2012;Rashwan et al, 2011;Laccetti & Schmid, 2007). Numerous studies have also focused on vulnerabilities that have given rise to DNS hijacking attacks (Brahmasani & Sivasankar, 2013;Shulman & Waidner, 2014), cross site request forgery (Siddiqui & Verma, 2011;Jovanovic, Kirda & Kruegel, 2006;Shahriar & Zulkernine, 2010;Zeng, 2013;Feil & Nyffenegger, 2008), misconfiguration (Saeed & Elgabar, 2014;Steinke, Tundreab & Kellya, 2011), content spoofing (Jitpukdebodin, Chokngamwong & Kungpisdan, 2014;Chavan & Meshram, 2013), local file inclusion (Ami & Malav, 2013), phishing attacks (Dadkhah, Lyashenko & Jazi, 2015;Nyeste & Mayhorn, 2012), and remote file inclusion (Robledo, 2008;Srivastava, 2012). However, there are no studies on the vulnerability of remote installation on what we will term remote installation vulnerability (RIV).…”
Section: Known Security Vulnerabilitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some researchers have analyzed so-called brute force attacks and methods of retrofitting against them (Cho et al, 2011;Cho et al, 2012;Rashwan et al, 2011;Laccetti & Schmid, 2007). Numerous studies have also focused on vulnerabilities that have given rise to DNS hijacking attacks (Brahmasani & Sivasankar, 2013;Shulman & Waidner, 2014), cross site request forgery (Siddiqui & Verma, 2011;Jovanovic, Kirda & Kruegel, 2006;Shahriar & Zulkernine, 2010;Zeng, 2013;Feil & Nyffenegger, 2008), misconfiguration (Saeed & Elgabar, 2014;Steinke, Tundreab & Kellya, 2011), content spoofing (Jitpukdebodin, Chokngamwong & Kungpisdan, 2014;Chavan & Meshram, 2013), local file inclusion (Ami & Malav, 2013), phishing attacks (Dadkhah, Lyashenko & Jazi, 2015;Nyeste & Mayhorn, 2012), and remote file inclusion (Robledo, 2008;Srivastava, 2012). However, there are no studies on the vulnerability of remote installation on what we will term remote installation vulnerability (RIV).…”
Section: Known Security Vulnerabilitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%