Vulnerabilities

28 via 111 paths

Dependencies

79

Source

GitHub

Commit

90783aa8

Find, fix and prevent vulnerabilities in your code.

Severity
  • 16
  • 9
  • 3
Status
  • 28
  • 0
  • 0

high severity

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Data Query Logic

  • Vulnerable module: mongoose
  • Introduced through: mongoose@3.9.7

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 mongoose@3.9.7
    Remediation: Upgrade to mongoose@6.13.5.

Overview

mongoose is a Mongoose is a MongoDB object modeling tool designed to work in an asynchronous environment.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Data Query Logic due to the improper handling of $where in match queries. An attacker can manipulate search queries to inject malicious code.

Remediation

Upgrade mongoose to version 6.13.5, 7.8.3, 8.8.3 or higher.

References

high severity

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Data Query Logic

  • Vulnerable module: mongoose
  • Introduced through: mongoose@3.9.7

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 mongoose@3.9.7
    Remediation: Upgrade to mongoose@6.13.6.

Overview

mongoose is a Mongoose is a MongoDB object modeling tool designed to work in an asynchronous environment.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Data Query Logic due to the improper use of a $where filter in conjunction with the populate() match. An attacker can manipulate search queries to retrieve or alter information without proper authorization by injecting malicious input into the query.

Note: This vulnerability derives from an incomplete fix of CVE-2024-53900

Remediation

Upgrade mongoose to version 6.13.6, 7.8.4, 8.9.5 or higher.

References

high severity

DLL Injection

  • Vulnerable module: kerberos
  • Introduced through: mongoose@3.9.7

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 mongoose@3.9.7 mongodb@1.4.12 kerberos@0.0.4

Overview

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to DLL Injection. An attacker can execute arbitrary code by creating a file with the same name in a folder that precedes the intended file in the DLL path search.

Remediation

Upgrade kerberos to version 1.0.0 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: mongoose
  • Introduced through: mongoose@3.9.7

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 mongoose@3.9.7
    Remediation: Upgrade to mongoose@5.13.20.

Overview

mongoose is a Mongoose is a MongoDB object modeling tool designed to work in an asynchronous environment.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution in document.js, via update functions such as findByIdAndUpdate(). This allows attackers to achieve remote code execution.

Note: Only applications using Express and EJS are vulnerable.

PoC


import { connect, model, Schema } from 'mongoose';

await connect('mongodb://127.0.0.1:27017/exploit');

const Example = model('Example', new Schema({ hello: String }));

const example = await new Example({ hello: 'world!' }).save();
await Example.findByIdAndUpdate(example._id, {
    $rename: {
        hello: '__proto__.polluted'
    }
});

// this is what causes the pollution
await Example.find();

const test = {};
console.log(test.polluted); // world!
console.log(Object.prototype); // [Object: null prototype] { polluted: 'world!' }

process.exit();

Details

Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.

There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

    if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source

      merge(target[property], source[property])

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.

Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).

lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.

Property definition by path

There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)

If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.

Types of attacks

There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:

Type Origin Short description
Denial of service (DoS) Client This is the most likely attack.
DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf).
The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service.
For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail.
Remote Code Execution Client Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.
For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.
Property Injection Client The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.
For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges.

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

  1. Freeze the prototype— use Object.freeze (Object.prototype).

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

  4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.

  5. As a best practice use Map instead of Object.

For more information on this vulnerability type:

Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018

Remediation

Upgrade mongoose to version 5.13.20, 6.11.3, 7.3.4 or higher.

References

high severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: content
  • Introduced through: hapi@7.5.3

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 content@1.0.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 pez@1.0.0 content@1.0.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.

Overview

content is a HTTP Content-* headers parsing

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) attacks. An attacker may pass a specially crafted Content-Type or Content-Disposition header, causing the server to hang. This can cause an impact of about 10 seconds matching time for data 180 characters long.

Disclosure Timeline

  • Feb 5th, 2018 - Initial Disclosure to package owner
  • Feb 5th, 2018 - Initial Response from package owner
  • Feb 28th, 2018 - Fix issued
  • Mar 5th, 2018 - Vulnerability published

Details

Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.

The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.

Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:

regex = /A(B|C+)+D/

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

  • A The string must start with the letter 'A'
  • (B|C+)+ The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the + matches one or more times). The + at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.
  • D Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'

The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD

It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total

The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.

Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.

Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:

  1. CCC
  2. CC+C
  3. C+CC
  4. C+C+C.

The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.

From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.

String Number of C's Number of steps
ACCCX 3 38
ACCCCX 4 71
ACCCCCX 5 136
ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX 14 65,553

By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.

Remediation

Upgrade content to versions 3.0.7, 4.0.4 or higher

References

high severity

Denial of Service (DoS)

  • Vulnerable module: hapi
  • Introduced through: hapi@7.5.3

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3

Overview

hapi is a HTTP Server framework.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS). The CORS request handler has a vulnerability which will cause the function to throw a system error if the header contains some invalid values. If no unhandled exception handler is available, the application will exist, allowing an attacker to shut down services.

Details

Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.

The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.

Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:

regex = /A(B|C+)+D/

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

  • A The string must start with the letter 'A'
  • (B|C+)+ The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the + matches one or more times). The + at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.
  • D Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'

The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD

It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total

The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.

Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.

Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:

  1. CCC
  2. CC+C
  3. C+CC
  4. C+C+C.

The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.

From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.

String Number of C's Number of steps
ACCCX 3 38
ACCCCX 4 71
ACCCCCX 5 136
ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX 14 65,553

By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.

Remediation

There is no fixed version for hapi.

References

high severity

Denial of Service (DoS)

  • Vulnerable module: hapi
  • Introduced through: hapi@7.5.3

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.1.3.

Overview

Sending a purposefully crafted invalid date in the If-Modified-Since or Last-Modified header will cause the Hapi server to err but keep the socket open (the socket will time out after 2 minutes by default). This allows an attacker to quickly exhaust the sockets on the server, making it unavailable (a Denial of Service attack).

The vulnerability is caused by the combination of two bugs. First, the underlying V8 engine throws an exception when processing the specially crafted date, instead of stating the date is invalid as it should. Second, the Hapi server does not handle the exception well, leading to the socket remaining open.

Upgrading Hapi will address the second issue and thus fix the vulnerability.

References

high severity

Directory Traversal

  • Vulnerable module: moment
  • Introduced through: good@3.1.1

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 good@3.1.1 moment@2.8.4
    Remediation: Upgrade to good@5.1.1.

Overview

moment is a lightweight JavaScript date library for parsing, validating, manipulating, and formatting dates.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Directory Traversal when a user provides a locale string which is directly used to switch moment locale.

Details

A Directory Traversal attack (also known as path traversal) aims to access files and directories that are stored outside the intended folder. By manipulating files with "dot-dot-slash (../)" sequences and its variations, or by using absolute file paths, it may be possible to access arbitrary files and directories stored on file system, including application source code, configuration, and other critical system files.

Directory Traversal vulnerabilities can be generally divided into two types:

  • Information Disclosure: Allows the attacker to gain information about the folder structure or read the contents of sensitive files on the system.

st is a module for serving static files on web pages, and contains a vulnerability of this type. In our example, we will serve files from the public route.

If an attacker requests the following URL from our server, it will in turn leak the sensitive private key of the root user.

curl http://localhost:8080/public/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/root/.ssh/id_rsa

Note %2e is the URL encoded version of . (dot).

  • Writing arbitrary files: Allows the attacker to create or replace existing files. This type of vulnerability is also known as Zip-Slip.

One way to achieve this is by using a malicious zip archive that holds path traversal filenames. When each filename in the zip archive gets concatenated to the target extraction folder, without validation, the final path ends up outside of the target folder. If an executable or a configuration file is overwritten with a file containing malicious code, the problem can turn into an arbitrary code execution issue quite easily.

The following is an example of a zip archive with one benign file and one malicious file. Extracting the malicious file will result in traversing out of the target folder, ending up in /root/.ssh/ overwriting the authorized_keys file:

2018-04-15 22:04:29 .....           19           19  good.txt
2018-04-15 22:04:42 .....           20           20  ../../../../../../root/.ssh/authorized_keys

Remediation

Upgrade moment to version 2.29.2 or higher.

References

high severity

Denial of Service (DoS)

  • Vulnerable module: mongodb
  • Introduced through: mongodb@2.0.55 and mongoose@3.9.7

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 mongodb@2.0.55
    Remediation: Upgrade to mongodb@3.1.13.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 mongoose@3.9.7 mongodb@1.4.12
    Remediation: Upgrade to mongoose@5.4.10.

Overview

mongodb is an official MongoDB driver for Node.js.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS). The package fails to properly catch an exception when a collection name is invalid and the DB does not exist, crashing the application.

Details

Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.

The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.

Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:

regex = /A(B|C+)+D/

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

  • A The string must start with the letter 'A'
  • (B|C+)+ The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the + matches one or more times). The + at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.
  • D Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'

The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD

It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total

The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.

Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.

Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:

  1. CCC
  2. CC+C
  3. C+CC
  4. C+C+C.

The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.

From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.

String Number of C's Number of steps
ACCCX 3 38
ACCCCX 4 71
ACCCCCX 5 136
ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX 14 65,553

By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.

Remediation

Upgrade mongodb to version 3.1.13 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: mquery
  • Introduced through: mongoose@3.9.7

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 mongoose@3.9.7 mquery@1.0.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to mongoose@5.12.3.

Overview

mquery is an Expressive query building for MongoDB

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the mergeClone() function.

PoC by zhou, peng

mquery = require('mquery');
var malicious_payload = '{"__proto__":{"polluted":"HACKED"}}';
console.log('Before:', {}.polluted); // undefined
mquery.utils.mergeClone({}, JSON.parse(malicious_payload));
console.log('After:', {}.polluted); // HACKED

Details

Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.

There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

    if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source

      merge(target[property], source[property])

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.

Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).

lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.

Property definition by path

There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)

If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.

Types of attacks

There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:

Type Origin Short description
Denial of service (DoS) Client This is the most likely attack.
DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf).
The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service.
For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail.
Remote Code Execution Client Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.
For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.
Property Injection Client The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.
For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges.

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

  1. Freeze the prototype— use Object.freeze (Object.prototype).

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

  4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.

  5. As a best practice use Map instead of Object.

For more information on this vulnerability type:

Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018

Remediation

Upgrade mquery to version 3.2.5 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Override Protection Bypass

  • Vulnerable module: qs
  • Introduced through: hapi@7.5.3

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 qs@2.4.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 qs@4.0.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.

Overview

qs is a querystring parser that supports nesting and arrays, with a depth limit.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Override Protection Bypass. By default qs protects against attacks that attempt to overwrite an object's existing prototype properties, such as toString(), hasOwnProperty(),etc.

From qs documentation:

By default parameters that would overwrite properties on the object prototype are ignored, if you wish to keep the data from those fields either use plainObjects as mentioned above, or set allowPrototypes to true which will allow user input to overwrite those properties. WARNING It is generally a bad idea to enable this option as it can cause problems when attempting to use the properties that have been overwritten. Always be careful with this option.

Overwriting these properties can impact application logic, potentially allowing attackers to work around security controls, modify data, make the application unstable and more.

In versions of the package affected by this vulnerability, it is possible to circumvent this protection and overwrite prototype properties and functions by prefixing the name of the parameter with [ or ]. e.g. qs.parse("]=toString") will return {toString = true}, as a result, calling toString() on the object will throw an exception.

Example:

qs.parse('toString=foo', { allowPrototypes: false })
// {}

qs.parse("]=toString", { allowPrototypes: false })
// {toString = true} <== prototype overwritten

For more information, you can check out our blog.

Disclosure Timeline

  • February 13th, 2017 - Reported the issue to package owner.
  • February 13th, 2017 - Issue acknowledged by package owner.
  • February 16th, 2017 - Partial fix released in versions 6.0.3, 6.1.1, 6.2.2, 6.3.1.
  • March 6th, 2017 - Final fix released in versions 6.4.0,6.3.2, 6.2.3, 6.1.2 and 6.0.4

Remediation

Upgrade qs to version 6.0.4, 6.1.2, 6.2.3, 6.3.2 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Poisoning

  • Vulnerable module: qs
  • Introduced through: hapi@7.5.3

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 qs@2.4.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 qs@4.0.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.

Overview

qs is a querystring parser that supports nesting and arrays, with a depth limit.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Poisoning which allows attackers to cause a Node process to hang, processing an Array object whose prototype has been replaced by one with an excessive length value.

Note: In many typical Express use cases, an unauthenticated remote attacker can place the attack payload in the query string of the URL that is used to visit the application, such as a[__proto__]=b&a[__proto__]&a[length]=100000000.

Details

Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its intended and legitimate users.

Unlike other vulnerabilities, DoS attacks usually do not aim at breaching security. Rather, they are focused on making websites and services unavailable to genuine users resulting in downtime.

One popular Denial of Service vulnerability is DDoS (a Distributed Denial of Service), an attack that attempts to clog network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines.

When it comes to open source libraries, DoS vulnerabilities allow attackers to trigger such a crash or crippling of the service by using a flaw either in the application code or from the use of open source libraries.

Two common types of DoS vulnerabilities:

  • High CPU/Memory Consumption- An attacker sending crafted requests that could cause the system to take a disproportionate amount of time to process. For example, commons-fileupload:commons-fileupload.

  • Crash - An attacker sending crafted requests that could cause the system to crash. For Example, npm ws package

Remediation

Upgrade qs to version 6.2.4, 6.3.3, 6.4.1, 6.5.3, 6.6.1, 6.7.3, 6.8.3, 6.9.7, 6.10.3 or higher.

References

high severity

Denial of Service (DoS)

  • Vulnerable module: subtext
  • Introduced through: hapi@7.5.3

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1

Overview

subtext is a HTTP payload parsing library. Deprecated. Note: This package is deprecated and is now maintained as @hapi/subtext

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS). The package fails to enforce the maxBytes configuration for payloads with chunked encoding that are written to the file system. This allows attackers to send requests with arbitrary payload sizes, which may exhaust system resources.

Details

Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its intended and legitimate users.

Unlike other vulnerabilities, DoS attacks usually do not aim at breaching security. Rather, they are focused on making websites and services unavailable to genuine users resulting in downtime.

One popular Denial of Service vulnerability is DDoS (a Distributed Denial of Service), an attack that attempts to clog network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines.

When it comes to open source libraries, DoS vulnerabilities allow attackers to trigger such a crash or crippling of the service by using a flaw either in the application code or from the use of open source libraries.

Two common types of DoS vulnerabilities:

  • High CPU/Memory Consumption- An attacker sending crafted requests that could cause the system to take a disproportionate amount of time to process. For example, commons-fileupload:commons-fileupload.

  • Crash - An attacker sending crafted requests that could cause the system to crash. For Example, npm ws package

Remediation

There is no fixed version for subtext.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: mquery
  • Introduced through: mongoose@3.9.7

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 mongoose@3.9.7 mquery@1.0.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to mongoose@5.11.7.

Overview

mquery is an Expressive query building for MongoDB

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the merge function within lib/utils.js. Depending on if user input is provided, an attacker can overwrite and pollute the object prototype of a program.

PoC

   require('./env').getCollection(function(err, collection) {
      assert.ifError(err);
      col = collection;
      done();
    });
    var payload = JSON.parse('{"__proto__": {"polluted": "vulnerable"}}');
    var m = mquery(payload);
    console.log({}.polluted);
// The empty object {} will have a property called polluted which will print vulnerable

Details

Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.

There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

    if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source

      merge(target[property], source[property])

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.

Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).

lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.

Property definition by path

There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)

If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.

Types of attacks

There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:

Type Origin Short description
Denial of service (DoS) Client This is the most likely attack.
DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf).
The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service.
For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail.
Remote Code Execution Client Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.
For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.
Property Injection Client The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.
For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges.

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

  1. Freeze the prototype— use Object.freeze (Object.prototype).

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

  4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.

  5. As a best practice use Map instead of Object.

For more information on this vulnerability type:

Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018

Remediation

Upgrade mquery to version 3.2.3 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: subtext
  • Introduced through: hapi@7.5.3

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1

Overview

subtext is a HTTP payload parsing library. Deprecated. Note: This package is deprecated and is now maintained as @hapi/subtext

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. A multipart payload can be constructed in a way that one of the parts’ content can be set as the entire payload object’s prototype. If this prototype contains data, it may bypass other validation rules which enforce access and privacy. If this prototype evaluates to null, it can cause unhandled exceptions when the request payload is accessed.

Details

Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.

The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.

Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:

regex = /A(B|C+)+D/

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

  • A The string must start with the letter 'A'
  • (B|C+)+ The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the + matches one or more times). The + at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.
  • D Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'

The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD

It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total

The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.

Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.

Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:

  1. CCC
  2. CC+C
  3. C+CC
  4. C+C+C.

The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.

From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.

String Number of C's Number of steps
ACCCX 3 38
ACCCCX 4 71
ACCCCCX 5 136
ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX 14 65,553

By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.

Remediation

There is no fixed version for subtext.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: mongoose
  • Introduced through: mongoose@3.9.7

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 mongoose@3.9.7
    Remediation: Upgrade to mongoose@5.13.15.

Overview

mongoose is a Mongoose is a MongoDB object modeling tool designed to work in an asynchronous environment.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution in the Schema.path() function.

Note: CVE-2022-24304 is a duplicate of CVE-2022-2564.

PoC:

const mongoose = require('mongoose');
const schema = new mongoose.Schema();

malicious_payload = '__proto__.toString'

schema.path(malicious_payload, [String])

x = {}
console.log(x.toString())

Details

Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.

There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

    if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source

      merge(target[property], source[property])

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.

Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).

lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.

Property definition by path

There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)

If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.

Types of attacks

There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:

Type Origin Short description
Denial of service (DoS) Client This is the most likely attack.
DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf).
The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service.
For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail.
Remote Code Execution Client Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.
For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.
Property Injection Client The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.
For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges.

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

  1. Freeze the prototype— use Object.freeze (Object.prototype).

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

  4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.

  5. As a best practice use Map instead of Object.

For more information on this vulnerability type:

Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018

Remediation

Upgrade mongoose to version 5.13.15, 6.4.6 or higher.

References

medium severity

Potentially loose security restrictions

  • Vulnerable module: hapi
  • Introduced through: hapi@7.5.3

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.1.4.

Overview

Security restrictions (e.g. origin) get overridden by less restrictive defaults (i.e. all origins) in cases when server level, connection level or route level CORS configurations are combined.

References

medium severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: hoek
  • Introduced through: boom@2.10.1, good@3.1.1 and others

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to boom@3.1.3.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 good@3.1.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to good@7.1.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@13.4.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 good@3.1.1 good-reporter@2.0.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Open PR to patch hoek@2.16.3.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 good@3.1.1 good-file@2.0.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to good@4.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 topo@1.1.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 good@3.1.1 joi@4.9.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to good@7.1.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 joi@4.9.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@13.1.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 accept@1.1.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 call@1.0.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 catbox@4.3.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 catbox-memory@1.1.2 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 glue@1.0.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 iron@2.1.3 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@13.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 statehood@1.2.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@13.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 wreck@5.6.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.3.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 h2o2@2.0.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@9.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 heavy@1.0.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 mimos@1.0.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 inert@1.1.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@9.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 kilt@1.1.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 rejoice@1.0.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 shot@1.7.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@12.0.1.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@12.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 vision@1.2.2 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@9.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 accept@1.1.0 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 call@1.0.0 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 catbox@4.3.0 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 cryptiles@2.0.5 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 glue@1.0.0 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 iron@2.1.3 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 statehood@1.2.0 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 wreck@5.6.1 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.3.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 h2o2@2.0.1 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@9.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 inert@1.1.1 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@9.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 vision@1.2.2 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@9.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 good@3.1.1 good-file@2.0.0 good-reporter@2.0.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Open PR to patch hoek@2.16.3.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 good@3.1.1 joi@4.9.0 topo@1.1.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to good@7.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 joi@4.9.0 topo@1.1.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 glue@1.0.0 joi@4.9.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 h2o2@2.0.1 joi@4.9.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@9.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 heavy@1.0.0 joi@4.9.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 inert@1.1.1 joi@4.9.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@9.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 vision@1.2.2 joi@4.9.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@9.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 catbox@4.3.0 joi@6.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 statehood@1.2.0 iron@2.1.3 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@13.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 h2o2@2.0.1 statehood@1.2.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 h2o2@2.0.1 wreck@5.6.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@9.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 inert@1.1.1 mimos@1.0.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 rejoice@1.0.0 bossy@1.0.3 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 content@1.0.2 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Open PR to patch hoek@2.16.3.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 pez@1.0.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 wreck@6.3.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 iron@2.1.3 cryptiles@2.0.5 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 statehood@1.2.0 cryptiles@2.0.5 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 statehood@1.2.0 iron@2.1.3 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 h2o2@2.0.1 statehood@1.2.0 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 h2o2@2.0.1 wreck@5.6.1 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@9.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 content@1.0.2 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 pez@1.0.0 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 wreck@6.3.0 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 glue@1.0.0 joi@4.9.0 topo@1.1.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 h2o2@2.0.1 joi@4.9.0 topo@1.1.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@9.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 heavy@1.0.0 joi@4.9.0 topo@1.1.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 inert@1.1.1 joi@4.9.0 topo@1.1.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@9.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 vision@1.2.2 joi@4.9.0 topo@1.1.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@9.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 catbox@4.3.0 joi@6.10.1 topo@1.1.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 h2o2@2.0.1 statehood@1.2.0 iron@2.1.3 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 pez@1.0.0 content@1.0.2 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Open PR to patch hoek@2.16.3.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 pez@1.0.0 b64@2.0.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 pez@1.0.0 nigel@1.0.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 statehood@1.2.0 iron@2.1.3 cryptiles@2.0.5 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 h2o2@2.0.1 statehood@1.2.0 cryptiles@2.0.5 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 h2o2@2.0.1 statehood@1.2.0 iron@2.1.3 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.0.0.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 pez@1.0.0 content@1.0.2 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 pez@1.0.0 nigel@1.0.1 vise@1.0.0 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 h2o2@2.0.1 statehood@1.2.0 iron@2.1.3 cryptiles@2.0.5 boom@2.10.1 hoek@2.16.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@8.0.0.

Overview

hoek is an Utility methods for the hapi ecosystem.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The utilities function allow modification of the Object prototype. If an attacker can control part of the structure passed to this function, they could add or modify an existing property.

PoC by Olivier Arteau (HoLyVieR)

var Hoek = require('hoek');
var malicious_payload = '{"__proto__":{"oops":"It works !"}}';

var a = {};
console.log("Before : " + a.oops);
Hoek.merge({}, JSON.parse(malicious_payload));
console.log("After : " + a.oops);

Details

Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.

The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.

Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:

regex = /A(B|C+)+D/

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

  • A The string must start with the letter 'A'
  • (B|C+)+ The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the + matches one or more times). The + at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.
  • D Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'

The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD

It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total

The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.

Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.

Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:

  1. CCC
  2. CC+C
  3. C+CC
  4. C+C+C.

The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.

From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.

String Number of C's Number of steps
ACCCX 3 38
ACCCCX 4 71
ACCCCCX 5 136
ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX 14 65,553

By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.

Remediation

Upgrade hoek to version 4.2.1, 5.0.3 or higher.

References

medium severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: moment
  • Introduced through: good@3.1.1

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 good@3.1.1 moment@2.8.4
    Remediation: Upgrade to good@5.1.1.

Overview

moment is a lightweight JavaScript date library for parsing, validating, manipulating, and formatting dates.

Affected versions of the package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) attacks for any locale that has separate format and standalone options and format input can be controlled by the user.

An attacker can provide a specially crafted input to the format function, which nearly matches the pattern being matched. This will cause the regular expression matching to take a long time, all the while occupying the event loop and preventing it from processing other requests and making the server unavailable (a Denial of Service attack).

Disclosure Timeline

  • October 19th, 2016 - Reported the issue to package owner.
  • October 19th, 2016 - Issue acknowledged by package owner.
  • October 24th, 2016 - Issue fixed and version 2.15.2 released.

Details

Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.

The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.

Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:

regex = /A(B|C+)+D/

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

  • A The string must start with the letter 'A'
  • (B|C+)+ The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the + matches one or more times). The + at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.
  • D Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'

The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD

It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total

The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.

Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.

Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:

  1. CCC
  2. CC+C
  3. C+CC
  4. C+C+C.

The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.

From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.

String Number of C's Number of steps
ACCCX 3 38
ACCCCX 4 71
ACCCCCX 5 136
ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX 14 65,553

By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.

References

medium severity

Information Exposure

  • Vulnerable module: mongoose
  • Introduced through: mongoose@3.9.7

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 mongoose@3.9.7
    Remediation: Upgrade to mongoose@4.13.21.

Overview

mongoose is a Mongoose is a MongoDB object modeling tool designed to work in an asynchronous environment.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Information Exposure. Any query object with a _bsontype attribute is ignored, allowing attackers to bypass access control.

Remediation

Upgrade mongoose to version 4.13.21, 5.7.5 or higher.

References

medium severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: mongoose
  • Introduced through: mongoose@3.9.7

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 mongoose@3.9.7
    Remediation: Upgrade to mongoose@5.12.2.

Overview

mongoose is a Mongoose is a MongoDB object modeling tool designed to work in an asynchronous environment.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The mongoose.Schema() function is subject to prototype pollution due to the recursively calling of Schema.prototype.add() function to add new items into the schema object. This vulnerability allows modification of the Object prototype.

PoC

mongoose = require('mongoose');
mongoose.version; //'5.12.0'
var malicious_payload = '{"__proto__":{"polluted":"HACKED"}}';
console.log('Before:', {}.polluted); // undefined
mongoose.Schema(JSON.parse(malicious_payload));
console.log('After:', {}.polluted); // HACKED

Details

Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.

There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

    if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source

      merge(target[property], source[property])

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.

Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).

lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.

Property definition by path

There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)

If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.

Types of attacks

There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:

Type Origin Short description
Denial of service (DoS) Client This is the most likely attack.
DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf).
The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service.
For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail.
Remote Code Execution Client Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.
For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.
Property Injection Client The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.
For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges.

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

  1. Freeze the prototype— use Object.freeze (Object.prototype).

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

  4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.

  5. As a best practice use Map instead of Object.

For more information on this vulnerability type:

Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018

Remediation

Upgrade mongoose to version 5.12.2 or higher.

References

medium severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: mpath
  • Introduced through: mongoose@3.9.7

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 mongoose@3.9.7 mpath@0.1.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to mongoose@5.13.9.

Overview

mpath is a package that gets/sets javascript object values using MongoDB-like path notation.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. A type confusion vulnerability can lead to a bypass of CVE-2018-16490. In particular, the condition ignoreProperties.indexOf(parts[i]) !== -1 returns -1 if parts[i] is ['__proto__']. This is because the method that has been called if the input is an array is Array.prototype.indexOf() and not String.prototype.indexOf(). They behave differently depending on the type of the input.

PoC

const mpath = require('mpath');
// mpath.set(['__proto__', 'polluted'], 'yes', {});
// console.log(polluted); // ReferenceError: polluted is not defined

mpath.set([['__proto__'], 'polluted'], 'yes', {});
console.log(polluted); // yes

Details

Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.

There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

    if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source

      merge(target[property], source[property])

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.

Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).

lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.

Property definition by path

There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)

If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.

Types of attacks

There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:

Type Origin Short description
Denial of service (DoS) Client This is the most likely attack.
DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf).
The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service.
For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail.
Remote Code Execution Client Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.
For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.
Property Injection Client The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.
For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges.

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

  1. Freeze the prototype— use Object.freeze (Object.prototype).

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

  4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.

  5. As a best practice use Map instead of Object.

For more information on this vulnerability type:

Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018

Remediation

Upgrade mpath to version 0.8.4 or higher.

References

medium severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: content
  • Introduced through: hapi@7.5.3

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 content@1.0.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.
  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3 subtext@1.1.1 pez@1.0.0 content@1.0.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.4.

Overview

content is HTTP Content-* headers parsing.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) attacks. An attacker may pass a specially crafted Content-Type or Content-Disposition header, causing the server to hang.

Details

Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.

The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.

Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:

regex = /A(B|C+)+D/

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

  • A The string must start with the letter 'A'
  • (B|C+)+ The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the + matches one or more times). The + at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.
  • D Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'

The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD

It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total

The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.

Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.

Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:

  1. CCC
  2. CC+C
  3. C+CC
  4. C+C+C.

The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.

From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.

String Number of C's Number of steps
ACCCX 3 38
ACCCCX 4 71
ACCCCCX 5 136
ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX 14 65,553

By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.

Remediation

Upgrade content to version 3.0.6 or higher.

References

medium severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: moment
  • Introduced through: good@3.1.1

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 good@3.1.1 moment@2.8.4
    Remediation: Upgrade to good@5.1.1.

Overview

moment is a lightweight JavaScript date library for parsing, validating, manipulating, and formatting dates.

An attacker can provide a long value to the duration function, which nearly matches the pattern being matched. This will cause the regular expression matching to take a long time, all the while occupying the event loop and preventing it from processing other requests and making the server unavailable (a Denial of Service attack).

Details

Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.

The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.

Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:

regex = /A(B|C+)+D/

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

  • A The string must start with the letter 'A'
  • (B|C+)+ The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the + matches one or more times). The + at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.
  • D Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'

The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD

It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total

The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.

Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.

Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:

  1. CCC
  2. CC+C
  3. C+CC
  4. C+C+C.

The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.

From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.

String Number of C's Number of steps
ACCCX 3 38
ACCCCX 4 71
ACCCCCX 5 136
ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX 14 65,553

By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.

Remediation

Upgrade moment to version 2.11.2 or greater.

References

medium severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: ms
  • Introduced through: mongoose@3.9.7

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 mongoose@3.9.7 ms@0.1.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to mongoose@4.2.4.

Overview

ms is a tiny milisecond conversion utility.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) attack when converting a time period string (i.e. "2 days", "1h") into a milliseconds integer. A malicious user could pass extremely long strings to ms(), causing the server to take a long time to process, subsequently blocking the event loop for that extended period.

Details

Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.

The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.

Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:

regex = /A(B|C+)+D/

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

  • A The string must start with the letter 'A'
  • (B|C+)+ The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the + matches one or more times). The + at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.
  • D Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'

The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD

It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total

The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.

Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.

Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:

  1. CCC
  2. CC+C
  3. C+CC
  4. C+C+C.

The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.

From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.

String Number of C's Number of steps
ACCCX 3 38
ACCCCX 4 71
ACCCCCX 5 136
ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX 14 65,553

By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.

Remediation

Upgrade ms to version 0.7.1 or higher.

References

low severity

CORS Bypass

  • Vulnerable module: hapi
  • Introduced through: hapi@7.5.3

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 hapi@7.5.3
    Remediation: Upgrade to hapi@11.0.0.

Overview

Hapi v11.0.0 and below have an incorrect implementation of the CORS protocol, and allow for configurations that, at best, return inconsistent headers and, at worst, cross-origin activities that are expected to be forbidden.

Details

If the connection has CORS enabled but one route has it off, and the route is not GET, the OPTIONS prefetch request will return the default CORS headers and then the actual request will go through and return no CORS headers. This defeats the purpose of turning CORS on the route.

Remediation

Upgrade to a version 11.0.0 or greater.

References

low severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: moment
  • Introduced through: good@3.1.1

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 good@3.1.1 moment@2.8.4
    Remediation: Upgrade to good@5.1.1.

Overview

moment is a lightweight JavaScript date library for parsing, validating, manipulating, and formatting dates.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). It used a regular expression (/[0-9]*['a-z\u00A0-\u05FF\u0700-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF]+|[\u0600-\u06FF\/]+(\s*?[\u0600-\u06FF]+){1,2}/i) in order to parse dates specified as strings. This can cause a very low impact of about 2 seconds matching time for data 50k characters long.

Details

Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.

The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.

Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:

regex = /A(B|C+)+D/

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

  • A The string must start with the letter 'A'
  • (B|C+)+ The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the + matches one or more times). The + at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.
  • D Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'

The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD

It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total

The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.

Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.

Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:

  1. CCC
  2. CC+C
  3. C+CC
  4. C+C+C.

The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.

From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.

String Number of C's Number of steps
ACCCX 3 38
ACCCCX 4 71
ACCCCCX 5 136
ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX 14 65,553

By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.

Remediation

Upgrade moment to version 2.19.3 or higher.

References

low severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: ms
  • Introduced through: mongoose@3.9.7

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: vb-incidents-api@code4hr/vb-incidents-api#90783aa8cfbe65523284a9b6aa34919c5549e595 mongoose@3.9.7 ms@0.1.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to mongoose@4.10.2.

Overview

ms is a tiny millisecond conversion utility.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) due to an incomplete fix for previously reported vulnerability npm:ms:20151024. The fix limited the length of accepted input string to 10,000 characters, and turned to be insufficient making it possible to block the event loop for 0.3 seconds (on a typical laptop) with a specially crafted string passed to ms() function.

Proof of concept

ms = require('ms');
ms('1'.repeat(9998) + 'Q') // Takes about ~0.3s

Note: Snyk's patch for this vulnerability limits input length to 100 characters. This new limit was deemed to be a breaking change by the author. Based on user feedback, we believe the risk of breakage is very low, while the value to your security is much greater, and therefore opted to still capture this change in a patch for earlier versions as well. Whenever patching security issues, we always suggest to run tests on your code to validate that nothing has been broken.

For more information on Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) attacks, go to our blog.

Disclosure Timeline

  • Feb 9th, 2017 - Reported the issue to package owner.
  • Feb 11th, 2017 - Issue acknowledged by package owner.
  • April 12th, 2017 - Fix PR opened by Snyk Security Team.
  • May 15th, 2017 - Vulnerability published.
  • May 16th, 2017 - Issue fixed and version 2.0.0 released.
  • May 21th, 2017 - Patches released for versions >=0.7.1, <=1.0.0.

Details

Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.

The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.

Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:

regex = /A(B|C+)+D/

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

  • A The string must start with the letter 'A'
  • (B|C+)+ The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the + matches one or more times). The + at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.
  • D Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'

The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD

It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total

$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total

The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.

Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.

Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:

  1. CCC
  2. CC+C
  3. C+CC
  4. C+C+C.

The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.

From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.

String Number of C's Number of steps
ACCCX 3 38
ACCCCX 4 71
ACCCCCX 5 136
ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX 14 65,553

By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.

Remediation

Upgrade ms to version 2.0.0 or higher.

References