Find, fix and prevent vulnerabilities in your code.
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: decompress-zip
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › decompress-zip@0.0.8Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
decompress-zip extracts the contents of the ZIP archive file.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Write via Archive Extraction (Zip Slip). The package will extract files outside of the scope of the specified target directory because there is no validation that file extraction stays within the defined target path.
Details
It is exploited using a specially crafted zip archive, that holds path traversal filenames. When exploited, a filename in a malicious archive is concatenated to the target extraction directory, which results in the final path ending up outside of the target folder. For instance, a zip may hold a file with a "../../file.exe" location and thus break out 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 malicous 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 decompress-zip to version 0.2.2, 0.3.2 or higher.
References
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: handlebars
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › handlebars@1.0.12Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
handlebars is an extension to the Mustache templating language.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. It is possible to add or modify properties to the Object prototype through a malicious template. This may allow attackers to crash the application or execute Arbitrary Code in specific conditions.
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade handlebars to version 3.0.8, 4.5.3 or higher.
References
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: open
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › open@0.0.5Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
Overview
open is a cross platform package that opens stuff like URLs, files, executables.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary Code Injection when unsanitized user input is passed in.
The package does come with the following warning in the readme:
The same care should be taken when calling open as if you were calling child_process.exec directly. If it is an executable it will run in a new shell.
The package open is replacing the opn package, which is now deprecated. The older versions of open are vulnerable.
Note: Upgrading open to the last version will prevent this vulnerability but is also likely to have unwanted effects since it now has a very different API.
Remediation
Upgrade open to version 6.0.0 or higher.
References
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: socket.io-parser
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-parser@2.3.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@5.0.8.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-adapter@0.5.0 › socket.io-parser@2.3.1
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-client@1.7.4 › socket.io-parser@2.3.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@5.0.8.
Overview
socket.io-parser is a socket.io protocol parser
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Input Validation.
when parsing attachments containing untrusted user input. Attackers can overwrite the _placeholder object to place references to functions in query objects.
PoC
const decoder = new Decoder();
decoder.on("decoded", (packet) => {
console.log(packet.data); // prints [ 'hello', [Function: splice] ]
})
decoder.add('51-["hello",{"_placeholder":true,"num":"splice"}]');
decoder.add(Buffer.from("world"));
Remediation
Upgrade socket.io-parser to version 3.3.3, 3.4.2, 4.0.5, 4.2.1 or higher.
References
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: form-data
- Introduced through: karma-phantomjs-launcher@1.0.4, generator-bastion@0.1.7 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma-phantomjs-launcher@1.0.4 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.16 › request@2.88.2 › form-data@2.3.3
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › request@2.88.2 › form-data@2.3.3
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › update-notifier@0.1.10 › request@2.88.2 › form-data@2.3.3
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › form-data@0.1.4
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › form-data@0.1.4
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › form-data@0.1.4
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › request@2.74.0 › form-data@1.0.1
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Predictable Value Range from Previous Values via the boundary value, which uses Math.random(). An attacker can manipulate HTTP request boundaries by exploiting predictable values, potentially leading to HTTP parameter pollution.
Remediation
Upgrade form-data to version 2.5.4, 3.0.4, 4.0.4 or higher.
References
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: hawk
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7, grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › hawk@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › hawk@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › hawk@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › request@2.74.0 › hawk@3.1.3
Overview
hawk is a library for the HTTP Hawk Authentication Scheme.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Authentication Bypass. The incoming (client supplied) hash of the payload is trusted by the server and not verified before the signature is calculated.
A malicious actor in the middle can alter the payload and the server side will not identify the modification occurred because it simply uses the client provided value instead of verify the hash provided against the modified payload.
According to the maintainers this issue is to be considered out of scope as "payload hash validation is optional and up to developer to implement".
Remediation
There is no fixed version for hawk.
References
high severity
new
- Vulnerable module: qs
- Introduced through: karma-phantomjs-launcher@1.0.4, generator-bastion@0.1.7 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma-phantomjs-launcher@1.0.4 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.16 › request@2.88.2 › qs@6.5.3
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › request@2.88.2 › qs@6.5.3
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › update-notifier@0.1.10 › request@2.88.2 › qs@6.5.3
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › qs@0.6.6
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › qs@0.6.6
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › qs@0.6.6
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › request@2.74.0 › qs@6.2.4
Overview
qs is a querystring parser that supports nesting and arrays, with a depth limit.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling via improper enforcement of the arrayLimit option in bracket notation parsing. An attacker can exhaust server memory and cause application unavailability by submitting a large number of bracket notation parameters - like a[]=1&a[]=2 - in a single HTTP request.
PoC
const qs = require('qs');
const attack = 'a[]=' + Array(10000).fill('x').join('&a[]=');
const result = qs.parse(attack, { arrayLimit: 100 });
console.log(result.a.length); // Output: 10000 (should be max 100)
Remediation
Upgrade qs to version 6.14.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › tar@0.1.20Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › tar@0.1.20
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Write. node-tar aims to guarantee that any file whose location would be modified by a symbolic link is not extracted. This is, in part, achieved by ensuring that extracted directories are not symlinks. Additionally, in order to prevent unnecessary stat calls to determine whether a given path is a directory, paths are cached when directories are created.
This logic was insufficient when extracting tar files that contained both a directory and a symlink with the same name as the directory, where the symlink and directory names in the archive entry used backslashes as a path separator on posix systems. The cache checking logic used both \ and / characters as path separators. However, \ is a valid filename character on posix systems.
By first creating a directory, and then replacing that directory with a symlink, it is possible to bypass node-tar symlink checks on directories, essentially allowing an untrusted tar file to symlink into an arbitrary location. This can lead to extracting arbitrary files into that location, thus allowing arbitrary file creation and overwrite.
Additionally, a similar confusion could arise on case-insensitive filesystems. If a tar archive contained a directory at FOO, followed by a symbolic link named foo, then on case-insensitive file systems, the creation of the symbolic link would remove the directory from the filesystem, but not from the internal directory cache, as it would not be treated as a cache hit. A subsequent file entry within the FOO directory would then be placed in the target of the symbolic link, thinking that the directory had already been created.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 6.1.7, 5.0.8, 4.4.16 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › tar@0.1.20Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › tar@0.1.20
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Write. node-tar aims to guarantee that any file whose location would be modified by a symbolic link is not extracted. This is, in part, achieved by ensuring that extracted directories are not symlinks. Additionally, in order to prevent unnecessary stat calls to determine whether a given path is a directory, paths are cached when directories are created.
This logic is insufficient when extracting tar files that contain two directories and a symlink with names containing unicode values that normalized to the same value. Additionally, on Windows systems, long path portions would resolve to the same file system entities as their 8.3 "short path" counterparts.
A specially crafted tar archive can include directories with two forms of the path that resolve to the same file system entity, followed by a symbolic link with a name in the first form, lastly followed by a file using the second form. This leads to bypassing node-tar symlink checks on directories, essentially allowing an untrusted tar file to symlink into an arbitrary location and extracting arbitrary files into that location.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 6.1.9, 5.0.10, 4.4.18 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › tar@0.1.20Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › tar@0.1.20
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Write. node-tar aims to guarantee that any file whose location would be outside of the extraction target directory is not extracted. This is, in part, accomplished by sanitizing absolute paths of entries within the archive, skipping archive entries that contain .. path portions, and resolving the sanitized paths against the extraction target directory.
This logic is insufficient on Windows systems when extracting tar files that contain a path that is not an absolute path, but specify a drive letter different from the extraction target, such as C:some\path. If the drive letter does not match the extraction target, for example D:\extraction\dir, then the result of path.resolve(extractionDirectory, entryPath) resolves against the current working directory on the C: drive, rather than the extraction target directory.
Additionally, a .. portion of the path can occur immediately after the drive letter, such as C:../foo, and is not properly sanitized by the logic that checks for .. within the normalized and split portions of the path.
Note: This only affects users of node-tar on Windows systems.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 6.1.9, 5.0.10, 4.4.18 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: open
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › open@0.0.5Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
Overview
open is a cross platform package that opens stuff like URLs, files, executables.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary Command Injection. Urls are not properly escaped before concatenating them into the command that is opened using exec().
Note: Upgrading open to the last version will prevent this vulnerability but is also likely to have unwanted effects since it now has a very different API.
Remediation
Upgrade open to version 6.0.0 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: uglify-js
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › handlebars@1.0.12 › uglify-js@2.3.6Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
uglify-js is a JavaScript parser, minifier, compressor and beautifier toolkit.
Tom MacWright discovered that UglifyJS versions 2.4.23 and earlier are affected by a vulnerability which allows a specially crafted Javascript file to have altered functionality after minification. This bug was demonstrated by Yan to allow potentially malicious code to be hidden within secure code, activated by minification.
Details
In Boolean algebra, DeMorgan's laws describe the relationships between conjunctions (&&), disjunctions (||) and negations (!).
In Javascript form, they state that:
!(a && b) === (!a) || (!b)
!(a || b) === (!a) && (!b)
The law does not hold true when one of the values is not a boolean however.
Vulnerable versions of UglifyJS do not account for this restriction, and erroneously apply the laws to a statement if it can be reduced in length by it.
Consider this authentication function:
function isTokenValid(user) {
var timeLeft =
!!config && // config object exists
!!user.token && // user object has a token
!user.token.invalidated && // token is not explicitly invalidated
!config.uninitialized && // config is initialized
!config.ignoreTimestamps && // don't ignore timestamps
getTimeLeft(user.token.expiry); // > 0 if expiration is in the future
// The token must not be expired
return timeLeft > 0;
}
function getTimeLeft(expiry) {
return expiry - getSystemTime();
}
When minified with a vulnerable version of UglifyJS, it will produce the following insecure output, where a token will never expire:
( Formatted for readability )
function isTokenValid(user) {
var timeLeft = !( // negation
!config // config object does not exist
|| !user.token // user object does not have a token
|| user.token.invalidated // token is explicitly invalidated
|| config.uninitialized // config isn't initialized
|| config.ignoreTimestamps // ignore timestamps
|| !getTimeLeft(user.token.expiry) // > 0 if expiration is in the future
);
return timeLeft > 0
}
function getTimeLeft(expiry) {
return expiry - getSystemTime()
}
Remediation
Upgrade UglifyJS to version 2.4.24 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › tar@0.1.20Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › tar@0.1.20
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Overwrite. This is due to insufficient symlink protection.
node-tar aims to guarantee that any file whose location would be modified by a symbolic link is not extracted. This is, in part, achieved by ensuring that extracted directories are not symlinks. Additionally, in order to prevent unnecessary stat calls to determine whether a given path is a directory, paths are cached when directories are created.
This logic is insufficient when extracting tar files that contain both a directory and a symlink with the same name as the directory. This order of operations results in the directory being created and added to the node-tar directory cache. When a directory is present in the directory cache, subsequent calls to mkdir for that directory are skipped.
However, this is also where node-tar checks for symlinks occur. By first creating a directory, and then replacing that directory with a symlink, it is possible to bypass node-tar symlink checks on directories, essentially allowing an untrusted tar file to symlink into an arbitrary location and subsequently extracting arbitrary files into that location.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 3.2.3, 4.4.15, 5.0.7, 6.1.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › tar@0.1.20Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › tar@0.1.20
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Overwrite. This is due to insufficient absolute path sanitization.
node-tar aims to prevent extraction of absolute file paths by turning absolute paths into relative paths when the preservePaths flag is not set to true. This is achieved by stripping the absolute path root from any absolute file paths contained in a tar file. For example, the path /home/user/.bashrc would turn into home/user/.bashrc.
This logic is insufficient when file paths contain repeated path roots such as ////home/user/.bashrc. node-tar only strips a single path root from such paths. When given an absolute file path with repeating path roots, the resulting path (e.g. ///home/user/.bashrc) still resolves to an absolute path.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 3.2.2, 4.4.14, 5.0.6, 6.1.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: handlebars
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › handlebars@1.0.12Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
handlebars is an extension to the Mustache templating language.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary Code Execution. The package's lookup helper doesn't validate templates correctly, allowing attackers to submit templates that execute arbitrary JavaScript in the system.
PoC
{{#with split as |a|}}
{{pop (push "alert('Vulnerable Handlebars JS');")}}
{{#with (concat (lookup join (slice 0 1)))}}
{{#each (slice 2 3)}}
{{#with (apply 0 a)}}
{{.}}
{{/with}}
{{/each}}
{{/with}}
{{/with}}
{{/with}}
Remediation
Upgrade handlebars to version 3.0.8, 4.5.3 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: js-yaml
- Introduced through: grunt@0.4.5
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › js-yaml@2.0.5Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.4.
Overview
js-yaml is a human-friendly data serialization language.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary Code Execution. When an object with an executable toString() property used as a map key, it will execute that function. This happens only for load(), which should not be used with untrusted data anyway. safeLoad() is not affected because it can't parse functions.
Remediation
Upgrade js-yaml to version 3.13.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › tar@0.1.20Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › tar@0.1.20
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Overwrite. Extracting tarballs containing a hard-link to a file that already exists in the system, and a file that matches the hard-link may overwrite system's files with the contents of the extracted file.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 2.2.2, 4.4.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: bower
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
bower offers a generic, unopinionated solution to the problem of front-end package management.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Write via Archive Extraction (Zip Slip). Attackers can write arbitrary files when a malicious archive is extracted.
Details
It is exploited using a specially crafted zip archive, that holds path traversal filenames. When exploited, a filename in a malicious archive is concatenated to the target extraction directory, which results in the final path ending up outside of the target folder. For instance, a zip may hold a file with a "../../file.exe" location and thus break out 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 malicous 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 bower to version 1.8.8 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: bl
- Introduced through: phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › request@2.74.0 › bl@1.1.2
Overview
bl is a library that allows you to collect buffers and access with a standard readable buffer interface.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Uninitialized Memory Exposure. If user input ends up in consume() argument and can become negative, BufferList state can be corrupted, tricking it into exposing uninitialized memory via regular .slice() calls.
PoC by chalker
const { BufferList } = require('bl')
const secret = require('crypto').randomBytes(256)
for (let i = 0; i < 1e6; i++) {
const clone = Buffer.from(secret)
const bl = new BufferList()
bl.append(Buffer.from('a'))
bl.consume(-1024)
const buf = bl.slice(1)
if (buf.indexOf(clone) !== -1) {
console.error(`Match (at ${i})`, buf)
}
}
Remediation
Upgrade bl to version 2.2.1, 3.0.1, 4.0.3, 1.2.3 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: braces
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › chokidar@1.7.0 › anymatch@1.3.2 › micromatch@2.3.11 › braces@1.8.5
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › expand-braces@0.1.2 › braces@0.1.5
Overview
braces is a Bash-like brace expansion, implemented in JavaScript.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Excessive Platform Resource Consumption within a Loop due improper limitation of the number of characters it can handle, through the parse function. An attacker can cause the application to allocate excessive memory and potentially crash by sending imbalanced braces as input.
PoC
const { braces } = require('micromatch');
console.log("Executing payloads...");
const maxRepeats = 10;
for (let repeats = 1; repeats <= maxRepeats; repeats += 1) {
const payload = '{'.repeat(repeats*90000);
console.log(`Testing with ${repeats} repeats...`);
const startTime = Date.now();
braces(payload);
const endTime = Date.now();
const executionTime = endTime - startTime;
console.log(`Regex executed in ${executionTime / 1000}s.\n`);
}
Remediation
Upgrade braces to version 3.0.3 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: engine.io
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › engine.io@1.8.5Remediation: Upgrade to karma@5.0.8.
Overview
engine.io is a realtime engine behind Socket.IO. It provides the foundation of a bidirectional connection between client and server
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via a POST request to the long polling transport.
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
wspackage
Remediation
Upgrade engine.io to version 3.6.0 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: engine.io
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › engine.io@1.8.5Remediation: Upgrade to karma@5.0.8.
Overview
engine.io is a realtime engine behind Socket.IO. It provides the foundation of a bidirectional connection between client and server
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS). A malicious client could send a specially crafted HTTP request, triggering an uncaught exception and killing the Node.js process.
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
wspackage
Remediation
Upgrade engine.io to version 3.6.1, 6.2.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: getobject
- Introduced through: grunt@0.4.5
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › getobject@0.1.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-util@0.2.0 › getobject@0.1.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.3.0.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. It allows an attacker to cause a denial of service and may lead to remote code execution.
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade getobject to version 1.0.0 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: grunt-karma
- Introduced through: grunt-karma@1.0.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-karma@1.0.0
Overview
grunt-karma is a grunt plugin for karma test runner
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the key variable in grunt-karma.js.
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
There is no fixed version for grunt-karma.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: grunt@0.4.5, generator-bastion@0.1.7 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › inquirer@0.4.1 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › grunt-legacy-log-utils@0.1.1 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › cheerio@0.17.0 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.3.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › lodash@2.1.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-util@0.2.0 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › inquirer@0.3.5 › lodash@1.2.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › lodash@0.10.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.6.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-karma@1.0.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-karma@3.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution through the zipObjectDeep function due to improper user input sanitization in the baseZipObject function.
PoC
lodash.zipobjectdeep:
const zipObjectDeep = require("lodash.zipobjectdeep");
let emptyObject = {};
console.log(`[+] Before prototype pollution : ${emptyObject.polluted}`);
//[+] Before prototype pollution : undefined
zipObjectDeep(["constructor.prototype.polluted"], [true]);
//we inject our malicious attributes in the vulnerable function
console.log(`[+] After prototype pollution : ${emptyObject.polluted}`);
//[+] After prototype pollution : true
lodash:
const test = require("lodash");
let emptyObject = {};
console.log(`[+] Before prototype pollution : ${emptyObject.polluted}`);
//[+] Before prototype pollution : undefined
test.zipObjectDeep(["constructor.prototype.polluted"], [true]);
//we inject our malicious attributes in the vulnerable function
console.log(`[+] After prototype pollution : ${emptyObject.polluted}`);
//[+] After prototype pollution : true
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.17 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: minimatch
- Introduced through: eslint@0.14.1, grunt-eslint@6.0.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › eslint@0.14.1 › minimatch@2.0.10Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@1.9.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-eslint@6.0.0 › eslint@0.14.1 › minimatch@2.0.10Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-eslint@17.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › fstream-ignore@0.0.10 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › minimatch@0.2.14Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › glob@3.1.21 › minimatch@0.2.14Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › minimatch@0.2.14
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-htmlhint@0.4.1 › htmlhint@0.9.6 › jshint@1.1.0 › minimatch@0.4.0
Overview
minimatch is a minimal matching utility.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via complicated and illegal regexes.
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 minimatch to version 3.0.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: minimatch
- Introduced through: eslint@0.14.1, grunt-eslint@6.0.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › eslint@0.14.1 › minimatch@2.0.10Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@1.9.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-eslint@6.0.0 › eslint@0.14.1 › minimatch@2.0.10Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-eslint@17.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Open PR to patch minimatch@0.3.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › fstream-ignore@0.0.10 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Open PR to patch minimatch@0.3.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Open PR to patch minimatch@0.3.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Open PR to patch minimatch@0.3.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › minimatch@0.2.14Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › glob@3.1.21 › minimatch@0.2.14Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › minimatch@0.2.14Remediation: Open PR to patch minimatch@0.2.14.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-htmlhint@0.4.1 › htmlhint@0.9.6 › jshint@1.1.0 › minimatch@0.4.0Remediation: Open PR to patch minimatch@0.4.0.
Overview
minimatch is a minimal matching utility.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS).
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 minimatch to version 3.0.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: mout
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-config@0.5.3 › mout@0.9.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › bower-config@0.4.5 › mout@0.6.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › mout@0.7.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
mout is a Modular Utilities
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The deepFillIn function can be used to 'fill missing properties recursively', while the deepMixIn 'mixes objects into the target object, recursively mixing existing child objects as well'. In both cases, the key used to access the target object recursively is not checked.
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade mout to version 1.2.3 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: mout
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-config@0.5.3 › mout@0.9.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › bower-config@0.4.5 › mout@0.6.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › mout@0.7.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
mout is a Modular Utilities
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The deepFillIn function can be used to 'fill missing properties recursively', while the deepMixIn mixes objects into the target object, recursively mixing existing child objects as well. In both cases, the key used to access the target object recursively is not checked, leading to exploiting this vulnerability.
Note: This vulnerability derives from an incomplete fix of CVE-2020-7792.
PoC
let mout = require("mout")
let b = {};
let payload = JSON.parse('["constructor.prototype.polluted"]');
mout.object.set(b, payload, "success");
console.log(polluted);
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade mout to version 1.2.4 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: parsejson
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-client@1.7.4 › engine.io-client@1.8.6 › parsejson@0.0.3
Overview
parsejson is a method that parses a JSON string and returns a JSON object.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) attacks. An attacker may pass a specially crafted JSON data, 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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 parsejson.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: qs
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7 and grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › qs@0.6.6Remediation: Open PR to patch qs@0.6.6.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › qs@0.6.6Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › qs@0.6.6Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
Overview
qs is a querystring parser that supports nesting and arrays, with a depth limit.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS).
During parsing, the qs module may create a sparse area (an array where no elements are filled), and grow that array to the necessary size based on the indices used on it. An attacker can specify a high index value in a query string, thus making the server allocate a respectively big array. Truly large values can cause the server to run out of memory and cause it to crash - thus enabling a Denial-of-Service attack.
Remediation
Upgrade qs to version 1.0.0 or higher.
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
wspackage
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: qs
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7 and grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › qs@0.6.6
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › qs@0.6.6Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › qs@0.6.6Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
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
6.4.0,6.3.2,6.2.3,6.1.2and6.0.4
Remediation
Upgrade qs to version 6.0.4, 6.1.2, 6.2.3, 6.3.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: qs
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7 and grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › qs@0.6.6
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › qs@0.6.6Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › qs@0.6.6Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
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
wspackage
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
- Vulnerable module: semver
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › semver@2.1.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › update-notifier@0.1.10 › semver@2.3.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › log4js@0.6.38 › semver@4.3.6Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
Overview
semver is a semantic version parser used by npm.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the function new Range, when untrusted user data is provided as a range.
PoC
const semver = require('semver')
const lengths_2 = [2000, 4000, 8000, 16000, 32000, 64000, 128000]
console.log("n[+] Valid range - Test payloads")
for (let i = 0; i =1.2.3' + ' '.repeat(lengths_2[i]) + '<1.3.0';
const start = Date.now()
semver.validRange(value)
// semver.minVersion(value)
// semver.maxSatisfying(["1.2.3"], value)
// semver.minSatisfying(["1.2.3"], value)
// new semver.Range(value, {})
const end = Date.now();
console.log('length=%d, time=%d ms', value.length, end - start);
}
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 semver to version 5.7.2, 6.3.1, 7.5.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: socket.io-parser
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-parser@2.3.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@5.0.8.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-adapter@0.5.0 › socket.io-parser@2.3.1
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-client@1.7.4 › socket.io-parser@2.3.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@5.0.8.
Overview
socket.io-parser is a socket.io protocol parser
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via a large packet because a concatenation approach is used.
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
wspackage
Remediation
Upgrade socket.io-parser to version 3.3.2, 3.4.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › tar@0.1.20Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › tar@0.1.20Remediation: Open PR to patch tar@0.1.20.
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Symlink File Overwrite. It does not properly normalize symbolic links pointing to targets outside the extraction root. As a result, packages may hold symbolic links to parent and sibling directories and overwrite those files when the package is extracted.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 2.0.0 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tough-cookie
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › tough-cookie@0.9.15
Overview
tough-cookie is a RFC6265 Cookies and CookieJar module for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). An attacker can provide a cookie, 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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 tough-cookie to version 2.3.0 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: trim-newlines
- Introduced through: karma-coverage@1.1.2
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma-coverage@1.1.2 › dateformat@1.0.12 › meow@3.7.0 › trim-newlines@1.0.0Remediation: Upgrade to karma-coverage@2.0.2.
Overview
trim-newlines is a Trim newlines from the start and/or end of a string
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via the end() method.
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
wspackage
Remediation
Upgrade trim-newlines to version 3.0.1, 4.0.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: unset-value
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.13 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the unset function in index.js, because it allows access to object prototype properties.
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade unset-value to version 2.0.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: useragent
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › useragent@2.3.0
Overview
useragent allows you to parse user agent string with high accuracy by using hand tuned dedicated regular expressions for browser matching.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) when passing long user-agent strings.
This is due to incomplete fix for this vulnerability: https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-USERAGENT-11000.
An attempt to fix the vulnerability has been pushed to master.
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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
A fix was pushed into the master branch but not yet published.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: adm-zip
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › adm-zip@0.4.16
Overview
adm-zip is a JavaScript implementation for zip data compression for NodeJS.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Directory Traversal. It could extract files outside the target folder.
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 adm-zip to version 0.5.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: hawk
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7, grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › hawk@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › hawk@1.0.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › hawk@1.0.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › request@2.74.0 › hawk@3.1.3Remediation: Upgrade to phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.16.
Overview
hawk is a library for the HTTP Hawk Authentication Scheme.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) in header parsing where each added character in the attacker's input increases the computation time exponentially.
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 hawk to version 9.0.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: deep-extend
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-json@0.4.0 › deep-extend@0.2.11Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
deep-extend is a library for Recursive object extending.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. Utilities function in all the listed modules can be tricked into modifying the prototype of "Object" when the attacker control part of the structure passed to these function. This can let an attacker add or modify existing property that will exist on all object.
PoC by HoLyVieR
var merge = require('deep-extend');
var malicious_payload = '{"__proto__":{"oops":"It works !"}}';
var a = {};
console.log("Before : " + a.oops);
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 deep-extend to version 0.5.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: fstream
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › fstream@0.1.31Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › tar@0.1.20 › fstream@0.1.31Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › fstream-ignore@0.0.10 › fstream@0.1.31Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › tar@0.1.20 › fstream@0.1.31
Overview
fstream is a package that supports advanced FS Streaming for Node.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Overwrite. Extracting tarballs containing a hardlink to a file that already exists in the system and a file that matches the hardlink will overwrite the system's file with the contents of the extracted file.
Remediation
Upgrade fstream to version 1.0.12 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: handlebars
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › handlebars@1.0.12Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
handlebars is an extension to the Mustache templating language.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. Templates may alter an Objects' prototype, thus allowing an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the server.
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade handlebars to version 3.0.7, 4.0.13, 4.1.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: handlebars
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › handlebars@1.0.12Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
handlebars is a extension to the Mustache templating language.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution.
Templates may alter an Object's __proto__ and __defineGetter__ properties, which may allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the server through crafted payloads.
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade handlebars to version 4.3.0, 3.0.8 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: grunt@0.4.5, generator-bastion@0.1.7 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › inquirer@0.4.1 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › grunt-legacy-log-utils@0.1.1 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › cheerio@0.17.0 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.3.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › lodash@2.1.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-util@0.2.0 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › inquirer@0.3.5 › lodash@1.2.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › lodash@0.10.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.6.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-karma@1.0.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-karma@3.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The function defaultsDeep could be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype using a constructor payload.
PoC by Snyk
const mergeFn = require('lodash').defaultsDeep;
const payload = '{"constructor": {"prototype": {"a0": true}}}'
function check() {
mergeFn({}, JSON.parse(payload));
if (({})[`a0`] === true) {
console.log(`Vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via ${payload}`);
}
}
check();
For more information, check out our blog post
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.12 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: grunt@0.4.5, generator-bastion@0.1.7 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › inquirer@0.4.1 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › grunt-legacy-log-utils@0.1.1 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › cheerio@0.17.0 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.3.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › lodash@2.1.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-util@0.2.0 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › inquirer@0.3.5 › lodash@1.2.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › lodash@0.10.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.6.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-karma@1.0.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-karma@3.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the set and setwith functions due to improper user input sanitization.
PoC
lod = require('lodash')
lod.set({}, "__proto__[test2]", "456")
console.log(Object.prototype)
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.17 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: grunt@0.4.5, generator-bastion@0.1.7 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › inquirer@0.4.1 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › grunt-legacy-log-utils@0.1.1 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › cheerio@0.17.0 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.3.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › lodash@2.1.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-util@0.2.0 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › inquirer@0.3.5 › lodash@1.2.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › lodash@0.10.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.6.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-karma@1.0.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-karma@3.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The functions merge, mergeWith, and defaultsDeep could be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype. This is due to an incomplete fix to CVE-2018-3721.
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.11 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: grunt@0.4.5, generator-bastion@0.1.7 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › inquirer@0.4.1 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › grunt-legacy-log-utils@0.1.1 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › cheerio@0.17.0 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.3.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › lodash@2.1.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-util@0.2.0 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › inquirer@0.3.5 › lodash@1.2.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › lodash@0.10.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.6.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-karma@1.0.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-karma@3.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Code Injection via template.
PoC
var _ = require('lodash');
_.template('', { variable: '){console.log(process.env)}; with(obj' })()
Remediation
Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.21 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: grunt
- Introduced through: grunt@0.4.5
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.3.0.
Overview
grunt is a JavaScript task runner.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary Code Execution due to the default usage of the function load() instead of its secure replacement safeLoad() of the package js-yaml inside grunt.file.readYAML.
Remediation
Upgrade grunt to version 1.3.0 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: shelljs
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7 and grunt-htmlhint@0.4.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › shelljs@0.2.6
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-htmlhint@0.4.1 › htmlhint@0.9.6 › jshint@1.1.0 › shelljs@0.1.4
Overview
shelljs is a wrapper for the Unix shell commands for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Privilege Management. When ShellJS is used to create shell scripts which may be running as root, users with low-level privileges on the system can leak sensitive information such as passwords (depending on implementation) from the standard output of the privileged process OR shutdown privileged ShellJS processes via the exec function when triggering EACCESS errors.
Note: Thi only impacts the synchronous version of shell.exec().
Remediation
Upgrade shelljs to version 0.8.5 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: handlebars
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › handlebars@1.0.12Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
handlebars is an extension to the Mustache templating language.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Remote Code Execution (RCE) when selecting certain compiling options to compile templates coming from an untrusted source.
POC
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/handlebars@latest/dist/handlebars.js"></script>
<script>
// compile the template
var s = `
{{#with (__lookupGetter__ "__proto__")}}
{{#with (./constructor.getOwnPropertyDescriptor . "valueOf")}}
{{#with ../constructor.prototype}}
{{../../constructor.defineProperty . "hasOwnProperty" ..}}
{{/with}}
{{/with}}
{{/with}}
{{#with "constructor"}}
{{#with split}}
{{pop (push "alert('Vulnerable Handlebars JS when compiling in strict mode');")}}
{{#with .}}
{{#with (concat (lookup join (slice 0 1)))}}
{{#each (slice 2 3)}}
{{#with (apply 0 ../..)}}
{{.}}
{{/with}}
{{/each}}
{{/with}}
{{/with}}
{{/with}}
{{/with}}
`;
var template = Handlebars.compile(s, {
strict: true
});
// execute the compiled template and print the output to the console console.log(template({}));
</script>
Remediation
Upgrade handlebars to version 4.7.7 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: js-yaml
- Introduced through: grunt@0.4.5
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › js-yaml@2.0.5Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.2.0.
Overview
js-yaml is a human-friendly data serialization language.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the merge function. An attacker can alter object prototypes by supplying specially crafted YAML documents containing __proto__ properties. This can lead to unexpected behavior or security issues in applications that process untrusted YAML input.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be mitigated by running the server with node --disable-proto=delete or by using Deno, which has pollution protection enabled by default.
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade js-yaml to version 3.14.2, 4.1.1 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: useragent
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › useragent@2.3.0
Overview
useragent is an allows you to parse user agent string with high accuracy by using hand tuned dedicated regular expressions for browser matching.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) due to the usage of insecure regular expressions in the regexps.js component.
PoC
var useragent = require('useragent');
var attackString = "HbbTV/1.1.1CE-HTML/1.9;THOM " + new Array(20).join("SW-Version/");
// A copy of the regular expression
var reg = /(HbbTV)\/1\.1\.1.*CE-HTML\/1\.\d;(Vendor\/)*(THOM[^;]*?)[;\s](?:.*SW-Version\/.*)*(LF[^;]+);?/;
var request = 'GET / HTTP/1.1\r\nUser-Agent: ' + attackString + '\r\n\r\n';
console.log(useragent.parse(request).device);
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 useragent.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tmp
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › tmp@0.0.33Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › useragent@2.3.0 › tmp@0.0.33
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Symlink Attack via the dir parameter. An attacker can cause files or directories to be written to arbitrary locations by supplying a crafted symbolic link that resolves outside the intended temporary directory.
PoC
const tmp = require('tmp');
const tmpobj = tmp.fileSync({ 'dir': 'evil-dir'});
console.log('File: ', tmpobj.name);
try {
tmp.fileSync({ 'dir': 'mydir1'});
} catch (err) {
console.log('test 1:', err.message)
}
try {
tmp.fileSync({ 'dir': '/foo'});
} catch (err) {
console.log('test 2:', err.message)
}
try {
const fs = require('node:fs');
const resolved = fs.realpathSync('/tmp/evil-dir');
tmp.fileSync({ 'dir': resolved});
} catch (err) {
console.log('test 3:', err.message)
}
Remediation
Upgrade tmp to version 0.2.4 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: grunt
- Introduced through: grunt@0.4.5
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.5.3.
Overview
grunt is a JavaScript task runner.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Race Condition via the file.copy operations. Exploiting this vulnerability leads to arbitrary file writing when an attacker can create a symlink just after deletion of the destination symlink, but right before the symlink is being written.
Remediation
Upgrade grunt to version 1.5.3 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: handlebars
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › handlebars@1.0.12Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
handlebars is an extension to the Mustache templating language.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. Prototype access to the template engine allows for potential code execution.
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 handlebars to version 4.6.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: http-signature
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7 and grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › http-signature@0.10.1Remediation: Open PR to patch http-signature@0.10.1.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › http-signature@0.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › http-signature@0.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
http-signature is a reference implementation of Joyent's HTTP Signature scheme.
Affected versions of the package are vulnerable to Timing Attacks due to time-variable comparison of signatures.
The library implemented a character to character comparison, similar to the built-in string comparison mechanism, ===, and not a time constant string comparison. As a result, the comparison will fail faster when the first characters in the signature are incorrect.
An attacker can use this difference to perform a timing attack, essentially allowing them to guess the signature one character at a time.
You can read more about timing attacks in Node.js on the Snyk blog.
Remediation
Upgrade http-signature to version 1.0.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: qs
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7 and grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › qs@0.6.6Remediation: Open PR to patch qs@0.6.6.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › qs@0.6.6Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › qs@0.6.6Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
Overview
qs is a querystring parser that supports nesting and arrays, with a depth limit.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS). When parsing a string representing a deeply nested object, qs will block the event loop for long periods of time. Such a delay may hold up the server's resources, keeping it from processing other requests in the meantime, thus enabling 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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 qs to version 1.0.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: request
- Introduced through: karma-phantomjs-launcher@1.0.4, generator-bastion@0.1.7 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma-phantomjs-launcher@1.0.4 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.16 › request@2.88.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › request@2.88.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › update-notifier@0.1.10 › request@2.88.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › request@2.74.0
Overview
request is a simplified http request client.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Server-side Request Forgery (SSRF) due to insufficient checks in the lib/redirect.js file by allowing insecure redirects in the default configuration, via an attacker-controller server that does a cross-protocol redirect (HTTP to HTTPS, or HTTPS to HTTP).
NOTE: request package has been deprecated, so a fix is not expected. See https://github.com/request/request/issues/3142.
Remediation
A fix was pushed into the master branch but not yet published.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › tar@0.1.20Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › tar@0.1.20
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Uncontrolled Resource Consumption ('Resource Exhaustion') due to the lack of folders count validation during the folder creation process. An attacker who generates a large number of sub-folders can consume memory on the system running the software and even crash the client within few seconds of running it using a path with too many sub-folders inside.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 6.2.1 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tough-cookie
- Introduced through: karma-phantomjs-launcher@1.0.4, generator-bastion@0.1.7 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma-phantomjs-launcher@1.0.4 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.16 › request@2.88.2 › tough-cookie@2.5.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › request@2.88.2 › tough-cookie@2.5.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › update-notifier@0.1.10 › request@2.88.2 › tough-cookie@2.5.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › tough-cookie@0.9.15
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › request@2.74.0 › tough-cookie@2.3.4
Overview
tough-cookie is a RFC6265 Cookies and CookieJar module for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution due to improper handling of Cookies when using CookieJar in rejectPublicSuffixes=false mode. Due to an issue with the manner in which the objects are initialized, an attacker can expose or modify a limited amount of property information on those objects. There is no impact to availability.
PoC
// PoC.js
async function main(){
var tough = require("tough-cookie");
var cookiejar = new tough.CookieJar(undefined,{rejectPublicSuffixes:false});
// Exploit cookie
await cookiejar.setCookie(
"Slonser=polluted; Domain=__proto__; Path=/notauth",
"https://__proto__/admin"
);
// normal cookie
var cookie = await cookiejar.setCookie(
"Auth=Lol; Domain=google.com; Path=/notauth",
"https://google.com/"
);
//Exploit cookie
var a = {};
console.log(a["/notauth"]["Slonser"])
}
main();
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade tough-cookie to version 4.1.3 or higher.
References
medium severity
new
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › tar@0.1.20Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › tar@0.1.20
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Handling of Unicode Encoding in Path Reservations via Unicode Sharp-S (ß) Collisions on macOS APFS. An attacker can overwrite arbitrary files by exploiting Unicode normalization collisions in filenames within a malicious tar archive on case-insensitive or normalization-insensitive filesystems.
Note:
This is only exploitable if the system is running on a filesystem such as macOS APFS or HFS+ that ignores Unicode normalization.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be mitigated by filtering out all SymbolicLink entries when extracting tarball data.
PoC
const tar = require('tar');
const fs = require('fs');
const path = require('path');
const { PassThrough } = require('stream');
const exploitDir = path.resolve('race_exploit_dir');
if (fs.existsSync(exploitDir)) fs.rmSync(exploitDir, { recursive: true, force: true });
fs.mkdirSync(exploitDir);
console.log('[*] Testing...');
console.log(`[*] Extraction target: ${exploitDir}`);
// Construct stream
const stream = new PassThrough();
const contentA = 'A'.repeat(1000);
const contentB = 'B'.repeat(1000);
// Key 1: "f_ss"
const header1 = new tar.Header({
path: 'collision_ss',
mode: 0o644,
size: contentA.length,
});
header1.encode();
// Key 2: "f_ß"
const header2 = new tar.Header({
path: 'collision_ß',
mode: 0o644,
size: contentB.length,
});
header2.encode();
// Write to stream
stream.write(header1.block);
stream.write(contentA);
stream.write(Buffer.alloc(512 - (contentA.length % 512))); // Padding
stream.write(header2.block);
stream.write(contentB);
stream.write(Buffer.alloc(512 - (contentB.length % 512))); // Padding
// End
stream.write(Buffer.alloc(1024));
stream.end();
// Extract
const extract = new tar.Unpack({
cwd: exploitDir,
// Ensure jobs is high enough to allow parallel processing if locks fail
jobs: 8
});
stream.pipe(extract);
extract.on('end', () => {
console.log('[*] Extraction complete');
// Check what exists
const files = fs.readdirSync(exploitDir);
console.log('[*] Files in exploit dir:', files);
files.forEach(f => {
const p = path.join(exploitDir, f);
const stat = fs.statSync(p);
const content = fs.readFileSync(p, 'utf8');
console.log(`File: ${f}, Inode: ${stat.ino}, Content: ${content.substring(0, 10)}... (Length: ${content.length})`);
});
if (files.length === 1 || (files.length === 2 && fs.statSync(path.join(exploitDir, files[0])).ino === fs.statSync(path.join(exploitDir, files[1])).ino)) {
console.log('\[*] GOOD');
} else {
console.log('[-] No collision');
}
});
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 7.5.4 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: cookie
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › engine.io@1.8.5 › cookie@0.3.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@6.3.5.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) via the cookie name, path, or domain, which can be used to set unexpected values to other cookie fields.
Workaround
Users who are not able to upgrade to the fixed version should avoid passing untrusted or arbitrary values for the cookie fields and ensure they are set by the application instead of user input.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade cookie to version 0.7.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: decompress
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5
Overview
decompress is a package that can be used for extracting archives.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Write via Archive Extraction (Zip Slip). It is possible to bypass the security measures provided by decompress and conduct ZIP path traversal through symlinks.
PoC
const decompress = require('decompress');
decompress('slip.tar.gz', 'dist').then(files => {
console.log('done!');
});
Details
It is exploited using a specially crafted zip archive, that holds path traversal filenames. When exploited, a filename in a malicious archive is concatenated to the target extraction directory, which results in the final path ending up outside of the target folder. For instance, a zip may hold a file with a "../../file.exe" location and thus break out 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 malicous 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 decompress to version 4.2.1 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: grunt
- Introduced through: grunt@0.4.5
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.5.0.
Overview
grunt is a JavaScript task runner.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Directory Traversal via creation of a symlink to a restricted file, if a local attacker has write access to the source directory of file.copy
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 grunt to version 1.5.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: hoek
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7, grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › hawk@1.0.0 › hoek@0.9.1
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › hawk@1.0.0 › hoek@0.9.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › hawk@1.0.0 › boom@0.4.2 › hoek@0.9.1
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › hawk@1.0.0 › boom@0.4.2 › hoek@0.9.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › hawk@1.0.0 › sntp@0.2.4 › hoek@0.9.1
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › hawk@1.0.0 › sntp@0.2.4 › hoek@0.9.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › hawk@1.0.0 › hoek@0.9.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › hawk@1.0.0 › cryptiles@0.2.2 › boom@0.4.2 › hoek@0.9.1
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › hawk@1.0.0 › cryptiles@0.2.2 › boom@0.4.2 › hoek@0.9.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › hawk@1.0.0 › boom@0.4.2 › hoek@0.9.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › hawk@1.0.0 › sntp@0.2.4 › hoek@0.9.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › hawk@1.0.0 › cryptiles@0.2.2 › boom@0.4.2 › hoek@0.9.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › request@2.74.0 › hawk@3.1.3 › hoek@2.16.3Remediation: Upgrade to phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.16.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › request@2.74.0 › hawk@3.1.3 › boom@2.10.1 › hoek@2.16.3Remediation: Upgrade to phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.16.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › request@2.74.0 › hawk@3.1.3 › sntp@1.0.9 › hoek@2.16.3Remediation: Upgrade to phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.16.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › request@2.74.0 › hawk@3.1.3 › cryptiles@2.0.5 › boom@2.10.1 › hoek@2.16.3Remediation: Upgrade to phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.16.
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: grunt@0.4.5, generator-bastion@0.1.7 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › inquirer@0.4.1 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › grunt-legacy-log-utils@0.1.1 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › cheerio@0.17.0 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.3.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › lodash@2.1.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-util@0.2.0 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › inquirer@0.3.5 › lodash@1.2.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › lodash@0.10.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.6.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-karma@1.0.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-karma@3.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
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 _= require('lodash');
var malicious_payload = '{"__proto__":{"oops":"It works !"}}';
var a = {};
console.log("Before : " + a.oops);
_.merge({}, JSON.parse(malicious_payload));
console.log("After : " + a.oops);
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.5 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: inflight
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22, karma-coverage@1.1.2 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma-coverage@1.1.2 › istanbul@0.4.5 › glob@5.0.15 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › fs-extra@0.30.0 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › fstream@0.1.31 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › tar@0.1.20 › fstream@0.1.31 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › fstream-ignore@0.0.10 › fstream@0.1.31 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › tar@0.1.20 › fstream@0.1.31 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime via the makeres function due to improperly deleting keys from the reqs object after execution of callbacks. This behavior causes the keys to remain in the reqs object, which leads to resource exhaustion.
Exploiting this vulnerability results in crashing the node process or in the application crash.
Note: This library is not maintained, and currently, there is no fix for this issue. To overcome this vulnerability, several dependent packages have eliminated the use of this library.
To trigger the memory leak, an attacker would need to have the ability to execute or influence the asynchronous operations that use the inflight module within the application. This typically requires access to the internal workings of the server or application, which is not commonly exposed to remote users. Therefore, “Attack vector” is marked as “Local”.
PoC
const inflight = require('inflight');
function testInflight() {
let i = 0;
function scheduleNext() {
let key = `key-${i++}`;
const callback = () => {
};
for (let j = 0; j < 1000000; j++) {
inflight(key, callback);
}
setImmediate(scheduleNext);
}
if (i % 100 === 0) {
console.log(process.memoryUsage());
}
scheduleNext();
}
testInflight();
Remediation
There is no fixed version for inflight.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tough-cookie
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › tough-cookie@0.9.15
Overview
tough-cookie is RFC6265 Cookies and Cookie Jar for node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) attacks. An attacker may pass a specially crafted cookie, 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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 to version 2.3.3 or newer.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: handlebars
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › handlebars@1.0.12Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
handlebars is an extension to the Mustache templating language.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution when selecting certain compiling options to compile templates coming from an untrusted source.
POC
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/handlebars@latest/dist/handlebars.js"></script>
<script>
// compile the template
var s2 = `{{'a/.") || alert("Vulnerable Handlebars JS when compiling in compat mode'}}`;
var template = Handlebars.compile(s2, {
compat: true
});
// execute the compiled template and print the output to the console console.log(template({}));
</script>
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade handlebars to version 4.7.7 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: minimist
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22, grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › optimist@0.6.1 › minimist@0.0.10
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-config@0.5.3 › optimist@0.6.1 › minimist@0.0.10
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › bower-config@0.4.5 › optimist@0.6.1 › minimist@0.0.10
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › extract-zip@1.5.0 › mkdirp@0.5.0 › minimist@0.0.8Remediation: Upgrade to phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.15.
Overview
minimist is a parse argument options module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The library could be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype using a constructor or __proto__ payload.
PoC by Snyk
require('minimist')('--__proto__.injected0 value0'.split(' '));
console.log(({}).injected0 === 'value0'); // true
require('minimist')('--constructor.prototype.injected1 value1'.split(' '));
console.log(({}).injected1 === 'value1'); // true
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade minimist to version 0.2.1, 1.2.3 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: log4js
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › log4js@0.6.38Remediation: Upgrade to karma@5.0.8.
Overview
log4js is a Port of Log4js to work with node.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Information Exposure via the default file permissions for log files that are created by the file, fileSync and dateFile appenders which are world-readable (in unix). This could cause problems if log files contain sensitive information. This would affect any users that have not supplied their own permissions for the files via the mode parameter in the config.
Remediation
Upgrade log4js to version 6.4.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: underscore
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7, grunt@0.4.5 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › cheerio@0.13.1 › underscore@1.5.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › js-yaml@2.0.5 › argparse@0.1.16 › underscore@1.7.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-htmlhint@0.4.1 › htmlhint@0.9.6 › jshint@1.1.0 › underscore@1.4.4
Overview
underscore is a JavaScript's functional programming helper library.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary Code Injection via the template function, particularly when the variable option is taken from _.templateSettings as it is not sanitized.
PoC
const _ = require('underscore');
_.templateSettings.variable = "a = this.process.mainModule.require('child_process').execSync('touch HELLO')";
const t = _.template("")();
Remediation
Upgrade underscore to version 1.13.0-2, 1.12.1 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: got
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › ext-name@1.0.1 › ext-list@0.2.0 › got@0.2.0
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Open Redirect due to missing verification of requested URLs. It allowed a victim to be redirected to a UNIX socket.
Remediation
Upgrade got to version 11.8.5, 12.1.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: karma
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22Remediation: Upgrade to karma@6.3.14.
Overview
karma is a simple tool that allows you to execute JavaScript code in multiple real browsers.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) in the returnUrl query param.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade karma to version 6.3.14 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: karma
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22Remediation: Upgrade to karma@6.3.16.
Overview
karma is a simple tool that allows you to execute JavaScript code in multiple real browsers.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Open Redirect due to missing validation of the return_url query parameter.
Remediation
Upgrade karma to version 6.3.16 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: handlebars
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › handlebars@1.0.12Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
handlebars provides the power necessary to let you build semantic templates.
When using attributes without quotes in a handlebars template, an attacker can manipulate the input to introduce additional attributes, potentially executing code. This may lead to a Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability, assuming an attacker can influence the value entered into the template. If the handlebars template is used to render user-generated content, this vulnerability may escalate to a persistent XSS vulnerability.
Details
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks occur when an attacker tricks a user’s browser to execute malicious JavaScript code in the context of a victim’s domain. Such scripts can steal the user’s session cookies for the domain, scrape or modify its content, and perform or modify actions on the user’s behalf, actions typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
These attacks are possible by escaping the context of the web application and injecting malicious scripts in an otherwise trusted website. These scripts can introduce additional attributes (say, a "new" option in a dropdown list or a new link to a malicious site) and can potentially execute code on the clients side, unbeknown to the victim. This occurs when characters like < > " ' are not escaped properly.
There are a few types of XSS:
- Persistent XSS is an attack in which the malicious code persists into the web app’s database.
- Reflected XSS is an which the website echoes back a portion of the request. The attacker needs to trick the user into clicking a malicious link (for instance through a phishing email or malicious JS on another page), which triggers the XSS attack.
- DOM-based XSS is an that occurs purely in the browser when client-side JavaScript echoes back a portion of the URL onto the page. DOM-Based XSS is notoriously hard to detect, as the server never gets a chance to see the attack taking place.
Example:
Assume handlebars was used to display user comments and avatar, using the following template:
<img src={{avatarUrl}}><pre>{{comment}}</pre>
If an attacker spoofed their avatar URL and provided the following value:
http://evil.org/avatar.png onload=alert(document.cookie)
The resulting HTML would be the following, triggering the script once the image loads:
<img src=http://evil.org/avatar.png onload=alert(document.cookie)><pre>Gotcha!</pre>
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: grunt@0.4.5, generator-bastion@0.1.7 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › inquirer@0.4.1 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › grunt-legacy-log-utils@0.1.1 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › cheerio@0.17.0 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.3.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › lodash@2.1.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-util@0.2.0 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › inquirer@0.3.5 › lodash@1.2.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › lodash@0.10.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.6.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-karma@1.0.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-karma@3.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the toNumber, trim and trimEnd functions.
POC
var lo = require('lodash');
function build_blank (n) {
var ret = "1"
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {
ret += " "
}
return ret + "1";
}
var s = build_blank(50000)
var time0 = Date.now();
lo.trim(s)
var time_cost0 = Date.now() - time0;
console.log("time_cost0: " + time_cost0)
var time1 = Date.now();
lo.toNumber(s)
var time_cost1 = Date.now() - time1;
console.log("time_cost1: " + time_cost1)
var time2 = Date.now();
lo.trimEnd(s)
var time_cost2 = Date.now() - time2;
console.log("time_cost2: " + time_cost2)
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 lodash to version 4.17.21 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: micromatch
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › chokidar@1.7.0 › anymatch@1.3.2 › micromatch@2.3.11
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity due to the use of unsafe pattern configurations that allow greedy matching through the micromatch.braces() function. An attacker can cause the application to hang or slow down by passing a malicious payload that triggers extensive backtracking in regular expression processing.
Remediation
Upgrade micromatch to version 4.0.8 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: minimatch
- Introduced through: eslint@0.14.1, grunt-eslint@6.0.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › eslint@0.14.1 › minimatch@2.0.10Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@1.9.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-eslint@6.0.0 › eslint@0.14.1 › minimatch@2.0.10Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-eslint@17.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › fstream-ignore@0.0.10 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › minimatch@0.2.14Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › glob@3.1.21 › minimatch@0.2.14Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › minimatch@0.2.14
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-htmlhint@0.4.1 › htmlhint@0.9.6 › jshint@1.1.0 › minimatch@0.4.0
Overview
minimatch is a minimal matching utility.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the braceExpand function in minimatch.js.
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 minimatch to version 3.0.5 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: semver
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › semver@2.1.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › update-notifier@0.1.10 › semver@2.3.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
Overview
semver is a semantic version parser used by npm.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). The semver module uses regular expressions when parsing a version string. For a carefully crafted input, the time it takes to process these regular expressions is not linear to the length of the input. Since the semver module did not enforce a limit on the version string length, an attacker could provide a long string that would take up a large amount of resources, potentially taking a server down. This issue therefore enables a potential 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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 semver to version 4.3.2 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: socket.io
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4Remediation: Upgrade to karma@5.0.8.
Overview
socket.io is a node.js realtime framework server.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Insecure Defaults due to CORS Misconfiguration. All domains are whitelisted by default.
Remediation
Upgrade socket.io to version 2.4.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: uglify-js
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › handlebars@1.0.12 › uglify-js@2.3.6Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
uglify-js is a JavaScript parser, minifier, compressor and beautifier toolkit.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the string_template and the decode_template functions.
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 uglify-js to version 3.14.3 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: uglify-js
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › handlebars@1.0.12 › uglify-js@2.3.6Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
The parse() function in the uglify-js package prior to version 2.6.0 is vulnerable to regular expression denial of service (ReDoS) attacks when long inputs of certain patterns are processed.
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 to version 2.6.0 or greater.
If a direct dependency update is not possible, use snyk wizard to patch this vulnerability.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: ws
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › engine.io@1.8.5 › ws@1.1.5Remediation: Upgrade to karma@5.0.8.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-client@1.7.4 › engine.io-client@1.8.6 › ws@1.1.5Remediation: Upgrade to karma@5.0.8.
Overview
ws is a simple to use websocket client, server and console for node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). A specially crafted value of the Sec-Websocket-Protocol header can be used to significantly slow down a ws server.
##PoC
for (const length of [1000, 2000, 4000, 8000, 16000, 32000]) {
const value = 'b' + ' '.repeat(length) + 'x';
const start = process.hrtime.bigint();
value.trim().split(/ *, */);
const end = process.hrtime.bigint();
console.log('length = %d, time = %f ns', length, end - start);
}
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 ws to version 7.4.6, 6.2.2, 5.2.3 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: concat-stream
- Introduced through: phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › extract-zip@1.5.0 › concat-stream@1.5.0Remediation: Upgrade to phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.15.
Overview
concat-stream is writable stream that concatenates strings or binary data and calls a callback with the result.
Affected versions of the package are vulnerable to Uninitialized Memory Exposure.
A possible memory disclosure vulnerability exists when a value of type number is provided to the stringConcat() method and results in concatenation of uninitialized memory to the stream collection.
This is a result of unobstructed use of the Buffer constructor, whose insecure default constructor increases the odds of memory leakage.
Details
Constructing a Buffer class with integer N creates a Buffer of length N with raw (not "zero-ed") memory.
In the following example, the first call would allocate 100 bytes of memory, while the second example will allocate the memory needed for the string "100":
// uninitialized Buffer of length 100
x = new Buffer(100);
// initialized Buffer with value of '100'
x = new Buffer('100');
concat-stream's stringConcat function uses the default Buffer constructor as-is, making it easy to append uninitialized memory to an existing list. If the value of the buffer list is exposed to users, it may expose raw server side memory, potentially holding secrets, private data and code. This is a similar vulnerability to the infamous Heartbleed flaw in OpenSSL.
You can read more about the insecure Buffer behavior on our blog.
Similar vulnerabilities were discovered in request, mongoose, ws and sequelize.
Remediation
Upgrade concat-stream to version 1.5.2 or higher.
Note This is vulnerable only for Node <=4
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: request
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7 and grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0Remediation: Open PR to patch request@2.30.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
request is a simplified http request client.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Remote Memory Exposure.
A potential remote memory exposure vulnerability exists in request. If a request uses a multipart attachment and the body type option is number with value X, then X bytes of uninitialized memory will be sent in the body of the request.
Note that while the impact of this vulnerability is high (memory exposure), exploiting it is likely difficult, as the attacker needs to somehow control the body type of the request. One potential exploit scenario is when a request is composed based on JSON input, including the body type, allowing a malicious JSON to trigger the memory leak.
Details
Constructing a Buffer class with integer N creates a Buffer
of length N with non zero-ed out memory.
Example:
var x = new Buffer(100); // uninitialized Buffer of length 100
// vs
var x = new Buffer('100'); // initialized Buffer with value of '100'
Initializing a multipart body in such manner will cause uninitialized memory to be sent in the body of the request.
Proof of concept
var http = require('http')
var request = require('request')
http.createServer(function (req, res) {
var data = ''
req.setEncoding('utf8')
req.on('data', function (chunk) {
console.log('data')
data += chunk
})
req.on('end', function () {
// this will print uninitialized memory from the client
console.log('Client sent:\n', data)
})
res.end()
}).listen(8000)
request({
method: 'POST',
uri: 'http://localhost:8000',
multipart: [{ body: 1000 }]
},
function (err, res, body) {
if (err) return console.error('upload failed:', err)
console.log('sent')
})
Remediation
Upgrade request to version 2.68.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tunnel-agent
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7, grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › tunnel-agent@0.3.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › tunnel-agent@0.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › tunnel-agent@0.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › request@2.74.0 › tunnel-agent@0.4.3Remediation: Upgrade to phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.15.
Overview
tunnel-agent is HTTP proxy tunneling agent. Affected versions of the package are vulnerable to Uninitialized Memory Exposure.
A possible memory disclosure vulnerability exists when a value of type number is used to set the proxy.auth option of a request request and results in a possible uninitialized memory exposures in the request body.
This is a result of unobstructed use of the Buffer constructor, whose insecure default constructor increases the odds of memory leakage.
Details
Constructing a Buffer class with integer N creates a Buffer of length N with raw (not "zero-ed") memory.
In the following example, the first call would allocate 100 bytes of memory, while the second example will allocate the memory needed for the string "100":
// uninitialized Buffer of length 100
x = new Buffer(100);
// initialized Buffer with value of '100'
x = new Buffer('100');
tunnel-agent's request construction uses the default Buffer constructor as-is, making it easy to append uninitialized memory to an existing list. If the value of the buffer list is exposed to users, it may expose raw server side memory, potentially holding secrets, private data and code. This is a similar vulnerability to the infamous Heartbleed flaw in OpenSSL.
Proof of concept by ChALkeR
require('request')({
method: 'GET',
uri: 'http://www.example.com',
tunnel: true,
proxy:{
protocol: 'http:',
host:"127.0.0.1",
port:8080,
auth:80
}
});
You can read more about the insecure Buffer behavior on our blog.
Similar vulnerabilities were discovered in request, mongoose, ws and sequelize.
Remediation
Upgrade tunnel-agent to version 0.6.0 or higher.
Note This is vulnerable only for Node <=4
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: grunt@0.4.5, generator-bastion@0.1.7 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › inquirer@0.4.1 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-log@0.1.3 › grunt-legacy-log-utils@0.1.1 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-angular-gettext@0.2.15 › angular-gettext-tools@1.0.6 › cheerio@0.17.0 › lodash@2.4.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-angular-gettext@2.3.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › findup-sync@0.1.3 › lodash@2.4.2
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › file-utils@0.1.5 › lodash@2.1.0
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt@0.4.5 › grunt-legacy-util@0.2.0 › lodash@0.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to grunt@1.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › inquirer@0.3.5 › lodash@1.2.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › lodash@0.10.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.6.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-karma@1.0.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-karma@3.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). It parses dates using regex strings, which may cause a slowdown of 2 seconds per 50k characters.
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 lodash to version 4.17.11 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: braces
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › chokidar@1.7.0 › anymatch@1.3.2 › micromatch@2.3.11 › braces@1.8.5Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.3.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › expand-braces@0.1.2 › braces@0.1.5
Overview
braces is a Bash-like brace expansion, implemented in JavaScript.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). It used a regular expression (^\{(,+(?:(\{,+\})*),*|,*(?:(\{,+\})*),+)\}) in order to detects empty braces. This can cause an impact of about 10 seconds matching time for data 50K characters long.
Disclosure Timeline
- Feb 15th, 2018 - Initial Disclosure to package owner
- Feb 16th, 2018 - Initial Response from package owner
- Feb 18th, 2018 - Fix issued
- Feb 19th, 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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 braces to version 2.3.1 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: debug
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › debug@2.3.3Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › engine.io@1.8.5 › debug@2.3.3Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-adapter@0.5.0 › debug@2.3.3Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-client@1.7.4 › debug@2.3.3Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-client@1.7.4 › engine.io-client@1.8.6 › debug@2.3.3Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-parser@2.3.1 › debug@2.2.0Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-adapter@0.5.0 › socket.io-parser@2.3.1 › debug@2.2.0Remediation: Open PR to patch debug@2.2.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-client@1.7.4 › socket.io-parser@2.3.1 › debug@2.2.0Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
Overview
debug is a small debugging utility.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) in the function useColors via manipulation of the str argument.
The vulnerability can cause a very low impact of about 2 seconds of matching time for data 50k characters long.
Note: CVE-2017-20165 is a duplicate of this vulnerability.
PoC
Use the following regex in the %o formatter.
/\s*\n\s*/
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 debug to version 2.6.9, 3.1.0, 3.2.7, 4.3.1 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: hawk
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7 and grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › hawk@1.0.0Remediation: Open PR to patch hawk@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › hawk@1.0.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › hawk@1.0.0Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
Overview
hawk is an HTTP authentication scheme using a message authentication code (MAC) algorithm to provide partial HTTP request cryptographic verification.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) attacks.
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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.
You can read more about Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) on our blog.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: jasmine-core
- Introduced through: jasmine-core@2.99.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › jasmine-core@2.99.1Remediation: Upgrade to jasmine-core@3.1.0.
Overview
jasmine-core is a Behavior Driven Development testing framework for JavaScript.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). It used a regular expression (^\s*function\s*(\w*)\s*\() in order to parse JS toString output on a function to get a function name. This can cause an impact of about 10 seconds matching time for data 64K characters long.
Disclosure Timeline
- Feb 15th, 2018 - Initial Disclosure to package owner
- Feb 15th, 2018 - Initial Response from package owner
- Feb 15th, 2018 - Fix issued, not yet published to npm.
- Feb 18th, 2018 - Vulnerability published
- Mar 1st, 2018 - Fix published to npm.
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 jasmine-core to version 3.1.0 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: mime
- Introduced through: generator-bastion@0.1.7 and grunt-bower-task@0.3.4
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › mime@1.2.11Remediation: Open PR to patch mime@1.2.11.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › mime@1.2.11Remediation: Open PR to patch mime@1.2.11.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › mime@1.2.11Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › request@2.30.0 › form-data@0.1.4 › mime@1.2.11Remediation: Open PR to patch mime@1.2.11.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › request@2.27.0 › form-data@0.1.4 › mime@1.2.11Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.5.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › mime@1.2.11Remediation: Open PR to patch mime@1.2.11.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › request@2.27.0 › form-data@0.1.4 › mime@1.2.11Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
Overview
mime is a comprehensive, compact MIME type module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). It uses regex the following regex /.*[\.\/\\]/ in its lookup, which can cause a slowdown of 2 seconds for 50k characters.
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 mime to version 1.4.1, 2.0.3 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: minimist
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22, grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › optimist@0.6.1 › minimist@0.0.10
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-config@0.5.3 › optimist@0.6.1 › minimist@0.0.10
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › bower-registry-client@0.1.6 › bower-config@0.4.5 › optimist@0.6.1 › minimist@0.0.10
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.10 › extract-zip@1.5.0 › mkdirp@0.5.0 › minimist@0.0.8Remediation: Upgrade to phantomjs-prebuilt@2.1.15.
Overview
minimist is a parse argument options module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution due to a missing handler to Function.prototype.
Notes:
This vulnerability is a bypass to CVE-2020-7598
The reason for the different CVSS between CVE-2021-44906 to CVE-2020-7598, is that CVE-2020-7598 can pollute objects, while CVE-2021-44906 can pollute only function.
PoC by Snyk
require('minimist')('--_.constructor.constructor.prototype.foo bar'.split(' '));
console.log((function(){}).foo); // bar
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty 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
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade minimist to version 0.2.4, 1.2.6 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: ms
- Introduced through: karma@0.13.22
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › debug@2.3.3 › ms@0.7.2Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › engine.io@1.8.5 › debug@2.3.3 › ms@0.7.2Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-adapter@0.5.0 › debug@2.3.3 › ms@0.7.2Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-client@1.7.4 › debug@2.3.3 › ms@0.7.2Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-client@1.7.4 › engine.io-client@1.8.6 › debug@2.3.3 › ms@0.7.2Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-parser@2.3.1 › debug@2.2.0 › ms@0.7.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-adapter@0.5.0 › socket.io-parser@2.3.1 › debug@2.2.0 › ms@0.7.1Remediation: Open PR to patch ms@0.7.1.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › karma@0.13.22 › socket.io@1.7.4 › socket.io-client@1.7.4 › socket.io-parser@2.3.1 › debug@2.2.0 › ms@0.7.1Remediation: Upgrade to karma@2.0.0.
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
2.0.0released. - 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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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
low severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 and generator-bastion@0.1.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-bower-task@0.3.4 › bower@1.2.8 › tar@0.1.20Remediation: Upgrade to grunt-bower-task@0.4.0.
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › generator-bastion@0.1.7 › yeoman-generator@0.16.0 › download@0.1.19 › decompress@0.2.5 › tar@0.1.20
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). When stripping the trailing slash from files arguments, the f.replace(/\/+$/, '') performance of this function can exponentially degrade when f contains many / characters resulting in ReDoS.
This vulnerability is not likely to be exploitable as it requires that the untrusted input is being passed into the tar.extract() or tar.list() array of entries to parse/extract, which would be unusual.
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:
AThe 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.DFinally, 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:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- 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 tar to version 6.1.4, 5.0.8, 4.4.16 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: cli
- Introduced through: grunt-htmlhint@0.4.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: bastion@dlobatog/bastion#ccd6f7264f432e1dc2ca4f5b967c4fa2271018c5 › grunt-htmlhint@0.4.1 › htmlhint@0.9.6 › jshint@1.1.0 › cli@0.4.5
Overview
cli is an npm package used for rapidly building command line apps.
When used in daemon mode, the library makes insecure use of two files in the /tmp/ folder: /tmp/<app-name>.pid and /tmp/<app-name>.log. These allow an attacker to overwrite files they typically cannot access, but that are accessible by the user running the CLI-using app. This is possible since the /tmp/ folder is (typically) writeable to all system users, and because the names of the files in question are easily predicted by an attacker.
Note that while this is a real vulnerability, it relies on functionality (daemon mode) which is only supported in very old Node versions (0.8 or older), and so is unlikely to be used by most cli users. To avoid any doubt, the fixed version (1.0.0) removes support for this feature entirely.
This vulnerability has also been assigned CVE-2016-1000021.
Details
For example, assume user victim occasionally runs a CLI tool called cli-tool, which uses the cli package.
If an attacker gains write access to the /tmp/ folder of that machine (but not the higher permissions victim has), they can create the symbolic link /tmp/cli-tool.pid -> /home/victim/important-file. When victim runs cli-tool, the important-file in victim's root directory will be nullified. If the CLI tool is run as root, the same can be done to nullify /etc/passwd and make the system unbootable.
Note that popular CLI tools have no reason to mask their names, and so attackers can easily guess a long list of tools victims may run by checking the cli package dependents.
Remediation
Upgrade cli to version 1.0.0 or greater, which disables the affected feature.
From the fix release notes:
This feature relies on a beta release (e.g. version 0.5.1) of a Node.js
module on npm--one that was superseded by a stable (e.g. version 1.0)
release published three years ago [2]. Due to a build-time dependency on
the long-since deprecated `node-waf` tool, the module at that version
can only be built for Node.js versions 0.8 and below.
Given this, actual usage of this feature is likely very limited. Remove
it completely so the integrity of this module's core functionality can
be verified.
References
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=809252 [2] https://github.com/node-js-libs/cli/commit/fd6bc4d2a901aabe0bb6067fbcc14a4fe3faa8b9