Note: This isn't a new material, but apparently a lot of people are not familiar with it.
The three ways of redirection
OK, everybody knows the three ways of redirection:
* Via 3xx response (in the Location HTTP response header)
* Via "META REFRESH" (<meta http-equiv="Refresh" content="0; url=...">)
But is that all?
No; or as someone old and wise once said: "there is another Skywalker".
The fourth way of redirection
Let's take a closer look at the third redirection method above. What does it actually mean? Well, from the W3C HTML 4.01
specification, quote: META and HTTP headers
The http-equiv attribute can be used in place of the name attribute and has a special significance when documents are retrieved via the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). HTTP servers may use the property name specified by the http-equiv attribute to create an [RFC822]-style header in the HTTP response. Please see the HTTP specification ([RFC2616]) for details on valid HTTP headers.
In other words, by writing <meta http-equiv="Refresh" content="0; url=...">
We instruct the browser to virtually parse the equivalent of the following HTTP response header: Refresh: 0; url=...
And the obvious question is - what is this response header? To answer that, we need to dig in the dusty archives. Apparently,
the Refresh header was invented by Netscape, in their "http://wp.netscape.com/assist/net_sites/pushpull.html">AN EXPLORATION OF DYNAMIC DOCUMENTS" paper. The document is un-dated, but it references Netscape Navigator 1.1,
which was released in March 1995 according to Wikipedia. This makes the author believe that the paper actually pre-dated the first HTTP 1.0 specification (RFC 1945, dated May 1996), and somehow never made it to any of the HTTP RFCs (e.g. Roy T. Fielding post "Re: HTTP/1.1 Refresh header field comments". Nevertheless, since the Refresh header was de-facto standard in Navigator, Microsoft Explorer simply had to support it (and from personal experience, IE 6.0 indeed supports the Refresh header).
To summarize: yes, there's an HTTP response header by the name of Refresh, and while it's not standard (RFC-wise), it is supported by both Mozilla/FireFox, and Internet Explorer. And in fact, the META REFRESH redirection is its derivative (and not vice versa).
Why should I care?
Because you're a security professional, that's why!
Seriously, this has some interesting security implications. For a start, if a Refresh header is used in an application to redirect
the user to a URL, which is constructed (insecurely) from user input, then the application may in fact be vulnerable to HTTP
Response Splitting or simply to HTTP response header injection or maybe to open redirection. It follows that black box auditing is better be aware of this header and detect situations wherein user data can be injected to it. But even more importantly, static analysis and source code searching should incorporate Refresh header patterns. Just as an example, the PhpBB HTTP Response Splitting vulnerability discovered back in 2004 by Ory Segal was actually based on injection into a Refresh response header, as you can clearly see in the advisory.
Furthermore, the Refresh header may come in handy when you discover an HTTP response header injection in a 2xx response
(maybe in a different HTTP response header, e.g. Set-Cookie or Content-Type), but you can't "break out" of the HTTP response
header section and make it a full fledged HTTP response splitting attack. This may be in a situation where some kind of anti HTTP response splitting measure is in effect (something similar to PHP's protection scheme; note though that PHP's protection scheme is imperfect - see the discussion in the author's "HTTP Response Smuggling" paper). Now that you have the Refresh header in your arsenal, you can still squeeze in an attack (albeit a weaker one), such as redirecting the user to another URL (may be useful for phishing).