Vulnerabilities

75 via 222 paths

Dependencies

375

Source

GitHub

Commit

07f797cf

Find, fix and prevent vulnerabilities in your code.

Issue type
  • 75
  • 1
Severity
  • 3
  • 32
  • 38
  • 3
Status
  • 76
  • 0
  • 0

critical severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: handlebars
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 handlebars@4.0.13
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.

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 Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade handlebars to version 3.0.8, 4.5.3 or higher.

References

critical severity

Improper Input Validation

  • Vulnerable module: xmldom
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 passport-twitter@1.0.4 xtraverse@0.1.0 xmldom@0.1.31

Overview

xmldom is an A pure JavaScript W3C standard-based (XML DOM Level 2 Core) DOMParser and XMLSerializer module.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Input Validation due to parsing XML that is not well-formed, and contains multiple top-level elements. All the root nodes are being added to the childNodes collection of the Document, without reporting or throwing any error.

Workarounds

One of the following approaches might help, depending on your use case:

  1. Instead of searching for elements in the whole DOM, only search in the documentElement.

  2. Reject a document with a document that has more than 1 childNode.

PoC

var DOMParser = require('xmldom').DOMParser;
var xmlData = '<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>\n' +
'<root>\n' +
'  <branch girth="large">\n' +
'    <leaf color="green" />\n' +
'  </branch>\n' +
'</root>\n' +
'<root>\n' +
'  <branch girth="twig">\n' +
'    <leaf color="gold" />\n' +
'  </branch>\n' +
'</root>\n';
var xmlDOM = new DOMParser().parseFromString(xmlData);
console.log(xmlDOM.toString());

This will result with the following output:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><root>
  <branch girth="large">
    <leaf color="green"/>
  </branch>
</root>
<root>
  <branch girth="twig">
    <leaf color="gold"/>
  </branch>
</root>

Remediation

There is no fixed version for xmldom.

References

critical severity

Authentication Bypass

  • Vulnerable module: hawk
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 request@2.84.0 hawk@7.0.10
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0 hawk@7.0.10
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 request@2.84.0 hawk@7.0.10
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 request@2.84.0 hawk@7.0.10
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0 hawk@7.0.10
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0 hawk@7.0.10

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

Command Injection

  • Vulnerable module: nodemailer
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer@1.11.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.0.19.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer@1.11.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer@1.11.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

Overview

nodemailer is an Easy as cake e-mail sending from your Node.js applications

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Command Injection. Use of crafted recipient email addresses may result in arbitrary command flag injection in sendmail transport for sending mails.

PoC

-bi@example.com (-bi Initialize the alias database.)
-d0.1a@example.com (The option -d0.1 prints the version of sendmail and the options it was compiled with.)
-Dfilename@example.com (Debug output ffile)

Remediation

Upgrade nodemailer to version 6.4.16 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: xmldom
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 passport-twitter@1.0.4 xtraverse@0.1.0 xmldom@0.1.31

Overview

xmldom is an A pure JavaScript W3C standard-based (XML DOM Level 2 Core) DOMParser and XMLSerializer module.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution through the copy() function in dom.js. Exploiting this vulnerability is possible via the p variable.

DISPUTED This vulnerability has been disputed by the maintainers of the package. Currently the only viable exploit that has been demonstrated is to pollute the target object (rather then the global object which is generally the case for Prototype Pollution vulnerabilities) and it is yet unclear if this limited attack vector exposes any vulnerability in the context of this package.

See the linked GitHub Issue for full details on the discussion around the legitimacy and potential revocation of this vulnerability.

Details

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

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

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

There is no fixed version for xmldom.

References

high severity

Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification)

  • Vulnerable module: body-parser
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 body-parser@1.18.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.11.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 express@4.16.0 body-parser@1.18.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.11.

Overview

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification) via the extendedparser and urlencoded functions when the URL encoding process is enabled. An attacker can flood the server with a large number of specially crafted requests.

Remediation

Upgrade body-parser to version 1.20.3 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: lodash
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 lodash@4.17.11
    Remediation: Open PR to patch lodash@4.17.11.

Overview

lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The function zipObjectDeep can be tricked into adding or modifying properties of the Object prototype. These properties will be present on all objects.

PoC

const _ = require('lodash');

_.zipObjectDeep(['__proto__.z'],[123]);

console.log(z); // 123

Details

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

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

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.20 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: ajv
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 request@2.84.0 har-validator@5.0.3 ajv@5.5.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0 har-validator@5.0.3 ajv@5.5.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 request@2.84.0 har-validator@5.0.3 ajv@5.5.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.5.20.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 request@2.84.0 har-validator@5.0.3 ajv@5.5.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0 har-validator@5.0.3 ajv@5.5.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0 har-validator@5.0.3 ajv@5.5.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.

Overview

ajv is an Another JSON Schema Validator

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. A carefully crafted JSON schema could be provided that allows execution of other code by prototype pollution. (While untrusted schemas are recommended against, the worst case of an untrusted schema should be a denial of service, not execution of code.)

Details

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

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

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade ajv to version 6.12.3 or higher.

References

high severity

Internal Property Tampering

  • Vulnerable module: bson
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 mongodb@2.2.31 mongodb-core@2.1.15 bson@1.0.9
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 mongodb@2.2.31 mongodb-core@2.1.15 bson@1.0.9
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 mongodb@2.2.31 mongodb-core@2.1.15 bson@1.0.9

Overview

bson is a BSON Parser for node and browser.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Internal Property Tampering. The package will ignore an unknown value for an object's _bsotype, leading to cases where an object is serialized as a document rather than the intended BSON type.

NOTE: This vulnerability has also been identified as: CVE-2019-2391

Remediation

Upgrade bson to version 1.1.4 or higher.

References

high severity

Internal Property Tampering

  • Vulnerable module: bson
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 mongodb@2.2.31 mongodb-core@2.1.15 bson@1.0.9
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 mongodb@2.2.31 mongodb-core@2.1.15 bson@1.0.9
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 mongodb@2.2.31 mongodb-core@2.1.15 bson@1.0.9

Overview

bson is a BSON Parser for node and browser.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Internal Property Tampering. The package will ignore an unknown value for an object's _bsotype, leading to cases where an object is serialized as a document rather than the intended BSON type.

NOTE: This vulnerability has also been identified as: CVE-2020-7610

Remediation

Upgrade bson to version 1.1.4 or higher.

References

high severity

Arbitrary Code Execution

  • Vulnerable module: handlebars
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 handlebars@4.0.13
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.

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

Server-side Request Forgery (SSRF)

  • Vulnerable module: netmask
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 netmask@1.0.6
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

Overview

netmask is a library to parse IPv4 CIDR blocks.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Server-side Request Forgery (SSRF). It incorrectly evaluates individual IPv4 octets that contain octal strings as left-stripped integers, leading to an inordinate attack surface on hundreds of thousands of projects that rely on netmask to filter or evaluate IPv4 block ranges, both inbound and outbound.

For example, a remote unauthenticated attacker can request local resources using input data 0177.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1), which netmask evaluates as the public IP 177.0.0.1. Contrastingly, a remote authenticated or unauthenticated attacker can input the data 0127.0.0.01 (87.0.0.1) as localhost, yet the input data is a public IP and can potentially cause local and remote file inclusion (LFI/RFI). A remote authenticated or unauthenticated attacker can bypass packages that rely on netmask to filter IP address blocks to reach intranets, VPNs, containers, adjacent VPC instances, or LAN hosts, using input data such as 012.0.0.1 (10.0.0.1), which netmask evaluates as 12.0.0.1 (public).

NOTE: This vulnerability has also been identified as: CVE-2021-29418

Remediation

Upgrade netmask to version 2.0.1 or higher.

References

high severity

Server-side Request Forgery (SSRF)

  • Vulnerable module: netmask
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 netmask@1.0.6
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

Overview

netmask is a library to parse IPv4 CIDR blocks.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Server-side Request Forgery (SSRF). It incorrectly evaluates individual IPv4 octets that contain octal strings as left-stripped integers, leading to an inordinate attack surface on hundreds of thousands of projects that rely on netmask to filter or evaluate IPv4 block ranges, both inbound and outbound.

For example, a remote unauthenticated attacker can request local resources using input data 0177.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1), which netmask evaluates as the public IP 177.0.0.1. Contrastingly, a remote authenticated or unauthenticated attacker can input the data 0127.0.0.01 (87.0.0.1) as localhost, yet the input data is a public IP and can potentially cause local and remote file inclusion (LFI/RFI). A remote authenticated or unauthenticated attacker can bypass packages that rely on netmask to filter IP address blocks to reach intranets, VPNs, containers, adjacent VPC instances, or LAN hosts, using input data such as 012.0.0.1 (10.0.0.1), which netmask evaluates as 12.0.0.1 (public).

NOTE: This vulnerability has also been identified as: CVE-2021-28918

Remediation

Upgrade netmask to version 2.0.1 or higher.

References

high severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: ansi-regex
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 elasticsearch@12.1.3 chalk@1.1.3 has-ansi@2.0.0 ansi-regex@2.1.1
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 elasticsearch@12.1.3 chalk@1.1.3 strip-ansi@3.0.1 ansi-regex@2.1.1
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 elasticsearch@12.1.3 chalk@1.1.3 has-ansi@2.0.0 ansi-regex@2.1.1
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 elasticsearch@12.1.3 chalk@1.1.3 has-ansi@2.0.0 ansi-regex@2.1.1
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 elasticsearch@12.1.3 chalk@1.1.3 strip-ansi@3.0.1 ansi-regex@2.1.1
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 elasticsearch@12.1.3 chalk@1.1.3 strip-ansi@3.0.1 ansi-regex@2.1.1

Overview

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) due to the sub-patterns [[\\]()#;?]* and (?:;[-a-zA-Z\\d\\/#&.:=?%@~_]*)*.

PoC

import ansiRegex from 'ansi-regex';

for(var i = 1; i <= 50000; i++) {
    var time = Date.now();
    var attack_str = "\u001B["+";".repeat(i*10000);
    ansiRegex().test(attack_str)
    var time_cost = Date.now() - time;
    console.log("attack_str.length: " + attack_str.length + ": " + time_cost+" ms")
}

Details

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

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

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

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

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade ansi-regex to version 3.0.1, 4.1.1, 5.0.1, 6.0.1 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: async
  • Introduced through: async@2.1.4 and soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef async@2.1.4
    Remediation: Upgrade to async@2.6.4.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 async@2.1.4
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.0.33.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 async@2.1.4
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.0.33.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 async@2.1.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 async@2.1.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 async@2.1.4
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 googleapis@23.0.2 async@2.6.0

Overview

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the mapValues() method, due to improper check in createObjectIterator function.

PoC

//when objects are parsed, all properties are created as own (the objects can come from outside sources (http requests/ file))
const hasOwn = JSON.parse('{"__proto__": {"isAdmin": true}}');

//does not have the property,  because it's inside object's own "__proto__"
console.log(hasOwn.isAdmin);

async.mapValues(hasOwn, (val, key, cb) => cb(null, val), (error, result) => {
  // after the method executes, hasOwn.__proto__ value (isAdmin: true) replaces the prototype of the newly created object, leading to potential exploits.
  console.log(result.isAdmin);
});

Details

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

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

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade async to version 2.6.4, 3.2.2 or higher.

References

high severity

Denial of Service (DoS)

  • Vulnerable module: handlebars
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 handlebars@4.0.13
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.5.23.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.

Overview

handlebars is an extension to the Mustache templating language.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS). The package's parser may be forced into an endless loop while processing specially-crafted templates, which may allow attackers to exhaust system resources leading to Denial of Service.

Details

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

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

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

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

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade handlebars to version 4.4.5 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: lodash
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 lodash@4.17.11

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 Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.17 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: merge
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 merge@1.2.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.0.19.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 merge@1.2.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.0.19.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 merge@1.2.1
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 merge@1.2.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

Overview

merge is a library that allows you to merge multiple objects into one, optionally creating a new cloned object. Similar to the jQuery.extend but more flexible. Works in Node.js and the browser.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The 'merge' function already checks for 'proto' keys in an object to prevent prototype pollution, but does not check for 'constructor' or 'prototype' keys.

Details

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

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

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade merge to version 2.1.0 or higher.

References

high severity

Denial of Service (DoS)

  • Vulnerable module: mongodb
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 mongodb@2.2.31
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 mongodb@2.2.31
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 mongodb@2.2.31
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.0.

Overview

mongodb is an official MongoDB driver for Node.js.

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

Details

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

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

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

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

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade mongodb to version 3.1.13 or higher.

References

high severity

Access Restriction Bypass

  • Vulnerable module: oauth2-server
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 oauth2-server@2.4.1

Overview

oauth2-server is a Complete, framework-agnostic, compliant and well tested module for implementing an OAuth2 Server in node.js

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Access Restriction Bypass via implementation of OAuth 2.0 without PKCE. It does not prevent authorization code injection. This is similar to CVE-2020-7692.

NOTE: this vulnerability is disputed by the vendor, who states 'As RFC7636 is an extension, I think the claim in the Readme of "RFC 6749 compliant" is valid and not misleading and I also therefore wouldn't describe this as a "vulnerability" with the library per se.'

Remediation

There is no fixed version for oauth2-server.

References

high severity

Prototype Poisoning

  • Vulnerable module: qs
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 body-parser@1.18.2 qs@6.5.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 express@4.16.0 qs@6.5.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.0.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 express@4.16.0 body-parser@1.18.2 qs@6.5.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.0.

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 ws package

Remediation

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

References

high severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: useragent
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 useragent@2.2.1

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

A fix was pushed into the master branch but not yet published.

References

high severity

Denial of Service (DoS)

  • Vulnerable module: ws
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 ws@3.3.1

Overview

ws is a simple to use websocket client, server and console for node.js.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) when the number of received headers exceed the server.maxHeadersCount or request.maxHeadersCount threshold.

Workaround

This issue can be mitigating by following these steps:

  1. Reduce the maximum allowed length of the request headers using the --max-http-header-size=size and/or the maxHeaderSize options so that no more headers than the server.maxHeadersCount limit can be sent.

  2. Set server.maxHeadersCount to 0 so that no limit is applied.

PoC


const http = require('http');
const WebSocket = require('ws');

const server = http.createServer();

const wss = new WebSocket.Server({ server });

server.listen(function () {
  const chars = "!#$%&'*+-.0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz^_`|~".split('');
  const headers = {};
  let count = 0;

  for (let i = 0; i < chars.length; i++) {
    if (count === 2000) break;

    for (let j = 0; j < chars.length; j++) {
      const key = chars[i] + chars[j];
      headers[key] = 'x';

      if (++count === 2000) break;
    }
  }

  headers.Connection = 'Upgrade';
  headers.Upgrade = 'websocket';
  headers['Sec-WebSocket-Key'] = 'dGhlIHNhbXBsZSBub25jZQ==';
  headers['Sec-WebSocket-Version'] = '13';

  const request = http.request({
    headers: headers,
    host: '127.0.0.1',
    port: server.address().port
  });

  request.end();
});

Details

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

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

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

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

Two common types of DoS vulnerabilities:

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade ws to version 5.2.4, 6.2.3, 7.5.10, 8.17.1 or higher.

References

high severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: hawk
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 request@2.84.0 hawk@7.0.10
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0 hawk@7.0.10
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.10.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 request@2.84.0 hawk@7.0.10
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 request@2.84.0 hawk@7.0.10
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.3.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0 hawk@7.0.10
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0 hawk@7.0.10
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade hawk to version 9.0.1 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: aws-sdk
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 aws-sdk@2.178.0

Overview

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. If an attacker submits a malicious INI file to an application that parses it with loadSharedConfigFiles , they will pollute the prototype on the application. This can be exploited further depending on the context.

PoC by Eugene Lim:

payload.toml:

[__proto__]
polluted = "polluted"

poc.js:

var fs = require('fs')
var sharedIniFileLoader = require('@aws-sdk/shared-ini-file-loader')

async function main() {
var parsed = await sharedIniFileLoader.loadSharedConfigFiles({ filepath: './payload.toml' })
console.log(parsed)
console.log(parsed.__proto__)
console.log({}.__proto__)
console.log(polluted)
}

main()
> node poc.js
{
configFile: { default: { region: 'ap-southeast-1' } },
credentialsFile: {}
}
{ polluted: '"polluted"' }
{ polluted: '"polluted"' }
"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 Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade aws-sdk to version 2.814.0 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: handlebars
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 handlebars@4.0.13
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.5.4.

Overview

handlebars is an extension to the Mustache templating language.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. A Prototype Pollution allowing Remote Code Execution can be exploited using the constructor, via the 'lookup' helper. This vulnerability is due to an incomplete fix for: SNYK-JS-HANDLEBARS-173692

Details

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

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

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade handlebars to version 3.0.7, 4.1.2, 4.0.14 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: handlebars
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 handlebars@4.0.13
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.5.20.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.5.15.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.5.15.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.5.15.

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 Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade handlebars to version 4.3.0, 3.0.8 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: lodash
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 lodash@4.17.11
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.5.14.

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 Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.12 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: lodash
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 lodash@4.17.11

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 Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.17 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: merge
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 merge@1.2.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.0.21.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 merge@1.2.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.0.19.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 merge@1.2.1
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 merge@1.2.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

Overview

merge is a library that allows you to merge multiple objects into one, optionally creating a new cloned object. Similar to the jQuery.extend but more flexible. Works in Node.js and the browser.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via _recursiveMerge .

PoC:

const merge = require('merge');

const payload2 = JSON.parse('{"x": {"__proto__":{"polluted":"yes"}}}');

let obj1 = {x: {y:1}};

console.log("Before : " + obj1.polluted);
merge.recursive(obj1, payload2);
console.log("After : " + obj1.polluted);
console.log("After : " + {}.polluted);

Output:

Before : undefined
After : yes
After : yes

Details

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

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

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade merge to version 2.1.1 or higher.

References

high severity

Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

  • Vulnerable module: node-forge
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 googleapis@23.0.2 google-auth-library@0.12.0 gtoken@1.2.3 google-p12-pem@0.1.2 node-forge@0.7.6

Overview

node-forge is a JavaScript implementations of network transports, cryptography, ciphers, PKI, message digests, and various utilities.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature due to RSA's PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification code which does not check for tailing garbage bytes after decoding a DigestInfo ASN.1 structure. This can allow padding bytes to be removed and garbage data added to forge a signature when a low public exponent is being used.

Remediation

Upgrade node-forge to version 1.3.0 or higher.

References

high severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: node-forge
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 googleapis@23.0.2 google-auth-library@0.12.0 gtoken@1.2.3 google-p12-pem@0.1.2 node-forge@0.7.6

Overview

node-forge is a JavaScript implementations of network transports, cryptography, ciphers, PKI, message digests, and various utilities.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the util.setPath function.

Note: version 0.10.0 is a breaking change removing the vulnerable functions.

POC:

const nodeforge = require('node-forge');
var obj = {};
nodeforge.util.setPath(obj, ['__proto__', 'polluted'], true);
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 Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade node-forge to version 0.10.0 or higher.

References

high severity

Code Injection

  • Vulnerable module: lodash
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 lodash@4.17.11

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

Cross-site Request Forgery (CSRF)

  • Vulnerable module: axios
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-compute@5.1.1 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-network@5.3.0 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-resource@3.1.1-preview ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-storage@3.2.0 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4

Overview

axios is a promise-based HTTP client for the browser and Node.js.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Request Forgery (CSRF) due to inserting the X-XSRF-TOKEN header using the secret XSRF-TOKEN cookie value in all requests to any server when the XSRF-TOKEN0 cookie is available, and the withCredentials setting is turned on. If a malicious user manages to obtain this value, it can potentially lead to the XSRF defence mechanism bypass.

Workaround

Users should change the default XSRF-TOKEN cookie name in the Axios configuration and manually include the corresponding header only in the specific places where it's necessary.

Remediation

Upgrade axios to version 0.28.0, 1.6.0 or higher.

References

high severity

Remote Code Execution (RCE)

  • Vulnerable module: handlebars
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 handlebars@4.0.13
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.0.21.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

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

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: path-to-regexp
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 express@4.16.0 path-to-regexp@0.1.7
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.11.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 path-to-regexp@3.0.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

Overview

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) when including multiple regular expression parameters in a single segment, which will produce the regular expression /^\/([^\/]+?)-([^\/]+?)\/?$/, if two parameters within a single segment are separated by a character other than a / or .. Poor performance will block the event loop and can lead to a DoS.

Note: While the 8.0.0 release has completely eliminated the vulnerable functionality, prior versions that have received the patch to mitigate backtracking may still be vulnerable if custom regular expressions are used. So it is strongly recommended for regular expression input to be controlled to avoid malicious performance degradation in those versions. This behavior is enforced as of version 7.1.0 via the strict option, which returns an error if a dangerous regular expression is detected.

Workaround

This vulnerability can be avoided by using a custom regular expression for parameters after the first in a segment, which excludes - and /.

PoC

/a${'-a'.repeat(8_000)}/a

Details

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

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

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

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

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade path-to-regexp to version 0.1.10, 1.9.0, 3.3.0, 6.3.0, 8.0.0 or higher.

References

medium severity
new

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: path-to-regexp
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 express@4.16.0 path-to-regexp@0.1.7

Overview

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) when including multiple regular expression parameters in a single segment, when the separator is not . (e.g. no /:a-:b). Poor performance will block the event loop and can lead to a DoS.

Note:

This issue is caused due to an incomplete fix for CVE-2024-45296.

Workarounds

This can be mitigated by avoiding using two parameters within a single path segment, when the separator is not . (e.g. no /:a-:b). Alternatively, the regex used for both parameters can be defined to ensure they do not overlap to allow backtracking.

PoC

/a${'-a'.repeat(8_000)}/a

Details

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

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

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

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

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade path-to-regexp to version 0.1.12 or higher.

References

medium severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: useragent
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 useragent@2.2.1

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

There is no fixed version for useragent.

References

medium severity

Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm

  • Vulnerable module: jsonwebtoken
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 jsonwebtoken@8.4.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

Overview

jsonwebtoken is a JSON Web Token implementation (symmetric and asymmetric)

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm such that the library can be misconfigured to use legacy, insecure key types for signature verification. For example, DSA keys could be used with the RS256 algorithm.

Exploitability

Users are affected when using an algorithm and a key type other than the combinations mentioned below:

EC: ES256, ES384, ES512

RSA: RS256, RS384, RS512, PS256, PS384, PS512

RSA-PSS: PS256, PS384, PS512

And for Elliptic Curve algorithms:

ES256: prime256v1

ES384: secp384r1

ES512: secp521r1

Workaround

Users who are unable to upgrade to the fixed version can use the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and verify() functions to continue usage of invalid key type/algorithm combination in 9.0.0 for legacy compatibility.

Remediation

Upgrade jsonwebtoken to version 9.0.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: handlebars
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 handlebars@4.0.13
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.8.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.6.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.6.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.6.

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade handlebars to version 4.6.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

Denial of Service (DoS)

  • Vulnerable module: http-proxy
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 http-proxy@1.16.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

Overview

http-proxy is a library that HTTP proxying for the masses.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS). HTTP requests with long bodies can crash the proxy sever via triggering an ERR_HTTP_HEADERS_SENT unhandled exception.

Note This vulnerability is only viable if proxy server uses the proxyReq.setHeader function to set headers in the proxy request.

PoC by Grant Murphy

A proxy server on http://localhost:3000, using the following curl request will trigger the unhandled exception:

curl -XPOST http://localhost:3000 -d "$(python -c 'print("x"*1025)')"

Details

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

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

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

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

Two common types of DoS vulnerabilities:

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade http-proxy to version 1.18.1 or higher.

References

medium severity

Improper Restriction of Security Token Assignment

  • Vulnerable module: jsonwebtoken
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 jsonwebtoken@8.4.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

Overview

jsonwebtoken is a JSON Web Token implementation (symmetric and asymmetric)

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Restriction of Security Token Assignment via the secretOrPublicKey argument due to misconfigurations of the key retrieval function jwt.verify(). Exploiting this vulnerability might result in incorrect verification of forged tokens when tokens signed with an asymmetric public key could be verified with a symmetric HS256 algorithm.

Note: This vulnerability affects your application if it supports the usage of both symmetric and asymmetric keys in jwt.verify() implementation with the same key retrieval function.

Remediation

Upgrade jsonwebtoken to version 9.0.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

Server-side Request Forgery (SSRF)

  • Vulnerable module: request
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 request@2.84.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 request@2.84.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 request@2.84.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 passport-azure-ad@4.0.0 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-compute@5.1.1 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-network@5.3.0 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-resource@3.1.1-preview ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-storage@3.2.0 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-compute@5.1.1 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-network@5.3.0 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-resource@3.1.1-preview ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-storage@3.2.0 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 googleapis@23.0.2 google-auth-library@0.12.0 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-compute@5.1.1 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-network@5.3.0 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-resource@3.1.1-preview ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-storage@3.2.0 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 googleapis@23.0.2 google-auth-library@0.12.0 gtoken@1.2.3 request@2.88.2

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

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: tough-cookie
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 request@2.84.0 tough-cookie@2.3.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0 tough-cookie@2.3.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 request@2.84.0 tough-cookie@2.3.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 request@2.84.0 tough-cookie@2.3.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0 tough-cookie@2.3.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 request@2.84.0 tough-cookie@2.3.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 passport-azure-ad@4.0.0 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-compute@5.1.1 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-network@5.3.0 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-resource@3.1.1-preview ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-storage@3.2.0 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-compute@5.1.1 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-network@5.3.0 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-resource@3.1.1-preview ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-storage@3.2.0 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 googleapis@23.0.2 google-auth-library@0.12.0 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-compute@5.1.1 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-network@5.3.0 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-resource@3.1.1-preview ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-storage@3.2.0 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 ms-rest@2.5.6 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 googleapis@23.0.2 google-auth-library@0.12.0 gtoken@1.2.3 request@2.88.2 tough-cookie@2.5.0

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 Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade tough-cookie to version 4.1.3 or higher.

References

medium severity

Improper Input Validation

  • Vulnerable module: xmldom
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 passport-twitter@1.0.4 xtraverse@0.1.0 xmldom@0.1.31

Overview

xmldom is an A pure JavaScript W3C standard-based (XML DOM Level 2 Core) DOMParser and XMLSerializer module.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Input Validation. It does not correctly escape special characters when serializing elements are removed from their ancestor. This may lead to unexpected syntactic changes during XML processing in some downstream applications.

Note: Customers who use "xmldom" package, should use "@xmldom/xmldom" instead, as "xmldom" is no longer maintained.

Remediation

There is no fixed version for xmldom.

References

medium severity

Improper Authentication

  • Vulnerable module: jsonwebtoken
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 jsonwebtoken@8.4.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

Overview

jsonwebtoken is a JSON Web Token implementation (symmetric and asymmetric)

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Authentication such that the lack of algorithm definition in the jwt.verify() function can lead to signature validation bypass due to defaulting to the none algorithm for signature verification.

Exploitability

Users are affected only if all of the following conditions are true for the jwt.verify() function:

  1. A token with no signature is received.

  2. No algorithms are specified.

  3. A falsy (e.g., null, false, undefined) secret or key is passed.

Remediation

Upgrade jsonwebtoken to version 9.0.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

  • Vulnerable module: cookie
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 cookie-parser@1.4.3 cookie@0.3.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.11.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 express@4.16.0 cookie@0.3.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.11.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 express-session@1.15.6 cookie@0.3.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.11.

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

A cross-site scripting attack occurs when the attacker tricks a legitimate web-based application or site to accept a request as originating from a trusted source.

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 &lt; and > can be coded as &gt; 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

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: node-forge
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 googleapis@23.0.2 google-auth-library@0.12.0 gtoken@1.2.3 google-p12-pem@0.1.2 node-forge@0.7.6

Overview

node-forge is a JavaScript implementations of network transports, cryptography, ciphers, PKI, message digests, and various utilities.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the forge.debug API if called with untrusted input.

Details

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

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

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade node-forge to version 1.0.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

HTTP Header Injection

  • Vulnerable module: nodemailer
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer@1.11.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.0.27.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer@1.11.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer@1.11.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

Overview

nodemailer is an Easy as cake e-mail sending from your Node.js applications

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to HTTP Header Injection if unsanitized user input that may contain newlines and carriage returns is passed into an address object.

PoC:

const userEmail = 'foo@bar.comrnSubject: foobar'; // imagine this comes from e.g. HTTP request params or is otherwise user-controllable
await transporter.sendMail({
from: '...',
to: '...',
replyTo: {
name: 'Customer',
address: userEmail,
},
subject: 'My Subject',
text: message,
});

Remediation

Upgrade nodemailer to version 6.6.1 or higher.

References

medium severity

Remote Code Execution (RCE)

  • Vulnerable module: bunyan
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 bunyan@1.8.5
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.0.13.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 bunyan@1.8.5
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 bunyan@1.8.5
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

Overview

bunyan is an a JSON logging library for node.js services

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Remote Code Execution (RCE) via insecure command formatting which allowed creating a "hacked" file in the current dir.

Remediation

Upgrade bunyan to version 1.8.13, 2.0.3 or higher.

References

medium severity

Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime

  • Vulnerable module: inflight
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 rimraf@2.7.1 glob@7.2.3 inflight@1.0.6
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 bunyan@1.8.5 mv@2.1.1 rimraf@2.4.5 glob@6.0.4 inflight@1.0.6
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 bunyan@1.8.5 mv@2.1.1 rimraf@2.4.5 glob@6.0.4 inflight@1.0.6
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 bunyan@1.8.5 mv@2.1.1 rimraf@2.4.5 glob@6.0.4 inflight@1.0.6
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 activedirectory@0.7.2 bunyan@2.0.5 mv@2.1.1 rimraf@2.4.5 glob@6.0.4 inflight@1.0.6
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 passport-azure-ad@4.0.0 bunyan@1.8.15 mv@2.1.1 rimraf@2.4.5 glob@6.0.4 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

Open Redirect

  • Vulnerable module: express
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 express@4.16.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.11.

Overview

express is a minimalist web framework.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Open Redirect due to the implementation of URL encoding using encodeurl before passing it to the location header. This can lead to unexpected evaluations of malformed URLs by common redirect allow list implementations in applications, allowing an attacker to bypass a properly implemented allow list and redirect users to malicious sites.

Remediation

Upgrade express to version 4.19.2, 5.0.0-beta.3 or higher.

References

medium severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: handlebars
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 handlebars@4.0.13
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.0.21.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

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 Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade handlebars to version 4.7.7 or higher.

References

medium severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: minimist
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 handlebars@4.0.13 optimist@0.6.1 minimist@0.0.10
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14 optimist@0.6.1 minimist@0.0.10
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14 optimist@0.6.1 minimist@0.0.10
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14 optimist@0.6.1 minimist@0.0.10

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 Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade minimist to version 0.2.1, 1.2.3 or higher.

References

medium severity

Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

  • Vulnerable module: node-forge
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 googleapis@23.0.2 google-auth-library@0.12.0 gtoken@1.2.3 google-p12-pem@0.1.2 node-forge@0.7.6

Overview

node-forge is a JavaScript implementations of network transports, cryptography, ciphers, PKI, message digests, and various utilities.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature due to RSA's PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification code which does not properly check DigestInfo for a proper ASN.1 structure. This can lead to successful verification with signatures that contain invalid structures but a valid digest.

Remediation

Upgrade node-forge to version 1.3.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

  • Vulnerable module: node-forge
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 googleapis@23.0.2 google-auth-library@0.12.0 gtoken@1.2.3 google-p12-pem@0.1.2 node-forge@0.7.6

Overview

node-forge is a JavaScript implementations of network transports, cryptography, ciphers, PKI, message digests, and various utilities.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature due to RSAs PKCS#1` v1.5 signature verification code which is lenient in checking the digest algorithm structure. This can allow a crafted structure that steals padding bytes and uses unchecked portion of the PKCS#1 encoded message to forge a signature when a low public exponent is being used.

Remediation

Upgrade node-forge to version 1.3.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

Arbitrary Code Injection

  • Vulnerable module: underscore
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer-direct-transport@3.3.2 smtp-connection@2.12.0 httpntlm@1.6.1 underscore@1.7.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer-smtp-transport@2.7.2 smtp-connection@2.12.0 httpntlm@1.6.1 underscore@1.7.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer-direct-transport@3.3.2 smtp-connection@2.12.0 httpntlm@1.6.1 underscore@1.7.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer-direct-transport@3.3.2 smtp-connection@2.12.0 httpntlm@1.6.1 underscore@1.7.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer-smtp-transport@2.7.2 smtp-connection@2.12.0 httpntlm@1.6.1 underscore@1.7.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer-smtp-transport@2.7.2 smtp-connection@2.12.0 httpntlm@1.6.1 underscore@1.7.0

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

Cross-site Scripting (XSS)

  • Vulnerable module: oauth2-server
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 oauth2-server@2.4.1

Overview

oauth2-server is a Complete, framework-agnostic, compliant and well tested module for implementing an OAuth2 Server in node.js

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) when the value of the redirect_uri parameter received during the authorization and token request is checked against an incorrect URI pattern ("[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9+.-]+:") before making a redirection. Exploiting this vulnerability is possible via the redirect_uri parameter while making an authorization request.

Details

A cross-site scripting attack occurs when the attacker tricks a legitimate web-based application or site to accept a request as originating from a trusted source.

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 &lt; and > can be coded as &gt; 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

There is no fixed version for oauth2-server.

References

medium severity

XML External Entity (XXE) Injection

  • Vulnerable module: xmldom
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 passport-twitter@1.0.4 xtraverse@0.1.0 xmldom@0.1.31

Overview

xmldom is an A pure JavaScript W3C standard-based (XML DOM Level 2 Core) DOMParser and XMLSerializer module.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to XML External Entity (XXE) Injection. Does not correctly preserve system identifiers, FPIs or namespaces when repeatedly parsing and serializing maliciously crafted documents.

Details

XXE Injection is a type of attack against an application that parses XML input. XML is a markup language that defines a set of rules for encoding documents in a format that is both human-readable and machine-readable. By default, many XML processors allow specification of an external entity, a URI that is dereferenced and evaluated during XML processing. When an XML document is being parsed, the parser can make a request and include the content at the specified URI inside of the XML document.

Attacks can include disclosing local files, which may contain sensitive data such as passwords or private user data, using file: schemes or relative paths in the system identifier.

For example, below is a sample XML document, containing an XML element- username.

<xml>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
   <username>John</username>
</xml>

An external XML entity - xxe, is defined using a system identifier and present within a DOCTYPE header. These entities can access local or remote content. For example the below code contains an external XML entity that would fetch the content of /etc/passwd and display it to the user rendered by username.

<xml>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE foo [
   <!ENTITY xxe SYSTEM "file:///etc/passwd" >]>
   <username>&xxe;</username>
</xml>

Other XXE Injection attacks can access local resources that may not stop returning data, possibly impacting application availability and leading to Denial of Service.

Remediation

Upgrade xmldom to version 0.5.0 or higher.

References

medium severity
new

Cross-site Scripting (XSS)

  • Vulnerable module: axios
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-compute@5.1.1 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-network@5.3.0 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-resource@3.1.1-preview ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-storage@3.2.0 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4

Overview

axios is a promise-based HTTP client for the browser and Node.js.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) via setAttribute('href' href) in /axios/dist/axios.js due to improper input sanitization.

Details

A cross-site scripting attack occurs when the attacker tricks a legitimate web-based application or site to accept a request as originating from a trusted source.

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 &lt; and > can be coded as &gt; 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 axios to version 1.7.8 or higher.

References

medium severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: axios
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-compute@5.1.1 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-network@5.3.0 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-resource@3.1.1-preview ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 azure-arm-storage@3.2.0 ms-rest-azure@2.6.2 adal-node@0.2.4 axios@0.21.4

Overview

axios is a promise-based HTTP client for the browser and Node.js.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). An attacker can deplete system resources by providing a manipulated string as input to the format method, causing the regular expression to exhibit a time complexity of O(n^2). This makes the server to become unable to provide normal service due to the excessive cost and time wasted in processing vulnerable regular expressions.

PoC

const axios = require('axios');

console.time('t1');
axios.defaults.baseURL = '/'.repeat(10000) + 'a/';
axios.get('/a').then(()=>{}).catch(()=>{});
console.timeEnd('t1');

console.time('t2');
axios.defaults.baseURL = '/'.repeat(100000) + 'a/';
axios.get('/a').then(()=>{}).catch(()=>{});
console.timeEnd('t2');


/* stdout
t1: 60.826ms
t2: 5.826s
*/

Details

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

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

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

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

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade axios to version 0.29.0, 1.6.3 or higher.

References

medium severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: lodash
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 lodash@4.17.11

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.21 or higher.

References

medium severity

Open Redirect

  • Vulnerable module: node-forge
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 googleapis@23.0.2 google-auth-library@0.12.0 gtoken@1.2.3 google-p12-pem@0.1.2 node-forge@0.7.6

Overview

node-forge is a JavaScript implementations of network transports, cryptography, ciphers, PKI, message digests, and various utilities.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Open Redirect via parseUrl function when it mishandles certain uses of backslash such as https:/\/\/\ and interprets the URI as a relative path.

PoC:


// poc.js
var forge = require("node-forge");
var url = forge.util.parseUrl("https:/\/\/\www.github.com/foo/bar");
console.log(url);

// Output of node poc.js:

{
  full: 'https://',
  scheme: 'https',
  host: '',
  port: 443,
  path: '/www.github.com/foo/bar',                        <<<---- path  should be "/foo/bar"
  fullHost: ''
}

Remediation

Upgrade node-forge to version 1.0.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: nodemailer
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer@1.11.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.10.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer@1.11.0
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 nodemailer@1.11.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.3.

Overview

nodemailer is an Easy as cake e-mail sending from your Node.js applications

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the attachDataUrls parameter or when parsing attachments with an embedded file. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by sending a specially crafted email that triggers inefficient regular expression evaluation, leading to excessive consumption of CPU resources.

Details

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

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

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

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

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade nodemailer to version 6.9.9 or higher.

References

medium severity

Denial of Service (DoS)

  • Vulnerable module: passport-azure-ad
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 passport-azure-ad@4.0.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.3.

Overview

passport-azure-ad is an OIDC and Bearer Passport strategies for Azure Active Directory.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS). If the Authorization header is formed as: Authorization: Bearer (that is, just a blank space after "Bearer") the token will be an empty string and will crash the server in the authenticate 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 ws package

Remediation

Upgrade passport-azure-ad to version 4.3.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: validator
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 validator@9.4.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.12.

Overview

validator is a library of string validators and sanitizers.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the isSlug function

PoC

var validator = require("validator")
function build_attack(n) {
    var ret = "111"
    for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {
        ret += "a"
    }

    return ret+"_";
}
for(var i = 1; i <= 50000; i++) {
    if (i % 10000 == 0) {
        var time = Date.now();
        var attack_str = build_attack(i)
       validator.isSlug(attack_str)
        var time_cost = Date.now() - time;
        console.log("attack_str.length: " + attack_str.length + ": " + time_cost+" ms")
   }
}

Details

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

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

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

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

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade validator to version 13.6.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: validator
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 validator@9.4.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.12.

Overview

validator is a library of string validators and sanitizers.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the isHSL function.

PoC

var validator = require("validator")
function build_attack(n) {
    var ret = "hsla(0"
    for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {
        ret += " "
    }

    return ret+"◎";
}
for(var i = 1; i <= 50000; i++) {
    if (i % 1000 == 0) {
        var time = Date.now();
        var attack_str = build_attack(i)
       validator.isHSL(attack_str)
        var time_cost = Date.now() - time;
        console.log("attack_str.length: " + attack_str.length + ": " + time_cost+" ms")
   }
}

Details

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

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

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

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

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade validator to version 13.6.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: validator
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 validator@9.4.1
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@3.0.12.

Overview

validator is a library of string validators and sanitizers.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the isEmail function.

PoC

var validator = require("validator")
function build_attack(n) {
    var ret = ""
    for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {
        ret += "<"
    }

    return ret+"";
}
for(var i = 1; i <= 50000; i++) {
    if (i % 10000 == 0) {
        var time = Date.now();
        var attack_str = build_attack(i)
        validator.isEmail(attack_str,{ allow_display_name: true })
        var time_cost = Date.now() - time;
        console.log("attack_str.length: " + attack_str.length + ": " + time_cost+" ms")
   }
}

Details

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

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

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

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

This regular expression accomplishes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade validator to version 13.6.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)

  • Vulnerable module: ws
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 ws@3.3.1

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remediation

Upgrade ws to version 7.4.6, 6.2.2, 5.2.3 or higher.

References

medium severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: xml2js
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 aws-sdk@2.178.0 xml2js@0.4.17

Overview

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution due to allowing an external attacker to edit or add new properties to an object. This is possible because the application does not properly validate incoming JSON keys, thus allowing the __proto__ property to be edited.

PoC

var parseString = require('xml2js').parseString;

let normal_user_request    = "<role>admin</role>";
let malicious_user_request = "<__proto__><role>admin</role></__proto__>";

const update_user = (userProp) => {
    // A user cannot alter his role. This way we prevent privilege escalations.
    parseString(userProp, function (err, user) {
        if(user.hasOwnProperty("role") && user?.role.toLowerCase() === "admin") {
            console.log("Unauthorized Action");
        } else {
            console.log(user?.role[0]);
        }
    });
}

update_user(normal_user_request);
update_user(malicious_user_request);

Details

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

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

  • Unsafe Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade xml2js to version 0.5.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

Cross-site Scripting

  • Vulnerable module: express
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 express@4.16.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.11.

Overview

express is a minimalist web framework.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting due to improper handling of user input in the response.redirect method. An attacker can execute arbitrary code by passing malicious input to this method.

Note

To exploit this vulnerability, the following conditions are required:

  1. The attacker should be able to control the input to response.redirect()

  2. express must not redirect before the template appears

  3. the browser must not complete redirection before:

  4. the user must click on the link in the template

Remediation

Upgrade express to version 4.20.0, 5.0.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

Session Fixation

  • Vulnerable module: passport
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 passport@0.4.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.3.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 passport-azure-ad@4.0.0 passport@0.3.2
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@2.6.3.

Overview

passport is a Simple, unobtrusive authentication for Node.js.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Session Fixation. When a user logs in or logs out, the session is regenerated instead of being closed.

Remediation

Upgrade passport to version 0.6.0 or higher.

References

medium severity

MPL-2.0 license

  • Module: exeunt
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 activedirectory@0.7.2 bunyan@2.0.5 exeunt@1.1.0

MPL-2.0 license

low severity

Prototype Pollution

  • Vulnerable module: minimist
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 handlebars@4.0.13 optimist@0.6.1 minimist@0.0.10
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14 optimist@0.6.1 minimist@0.0.10
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.core.drivers@3.5.7 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14 optimist@0.6.1 minimist@0.0.10
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 soajs.urac.driver@2.0.0 soajs.core.modules@2.5.8 handlebars@4.0.14 optimist@0.6.1 minimist@0.0.10

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 Object recursive merge

  • Property definition by path

Unsafe Object recursive merge

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

merge (target, source)

  foreach property of source

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

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

    else

      target[property] = source[property]

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

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

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

Property definition by path

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

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

Types of attacks

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

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

Affected environments

The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:

  • Application server

  • Web server

  • Web browser

How to prevent

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

  2. Require schema validation of JSON input.

  3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.

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

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

For more information on this vulnerability type:

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

Remediation

Upgrade minimist to version 0.2.4, 1.2.6 or higher.

References

low severity

Cross-site Scripting

  • Vulnerable module: send
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 express@4.16.0 send@0.16.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.11.
  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 express@4.16.0 serve-static@1.13.0 send@0.16.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.11.

Overview

send is a Better streaming static file server with Range and conditional-GET support

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting due to improper user input sanitization passed to the SendStream.redirect() function, which executes untrusted code. An attacker can execute arbitrary code by manipulating the input parameters to this method.

Note:

Exploiting this vulnerability requires the following:

  1. The attacker needs to control the input to response.redirect()

  2. Express MUST NOT redirect before the template appears

  3. The browser MUST NOT complete redirection before

  4. The user MUST click on the link in the template

Details

A cross-site scripting attack occurs when the attacker tricks a legitimate web-based application or site to accept a request as originating from a trusted source.

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 &lt; and > can be coded as &gt; 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 send to version 0.19.0, 1.1.0 or higher.

References

low severity

Cross-site Scripting

  • Vulnerable module: serve-static
  • Introduced through: soajs@2.5.0

Detailed paths

  • Introduced through: soajs.composer@soajs/soajs.composer#07f797cfbe80a3105efb5cf952fdc89b535311ef soajs@2.5.0 express@4.16.0 serve-static@1.13.0
    Remediation: Upgrade to soajs@4.1.11.

Overview

serve-static is a server.

Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting due to improper sanitization of user input in the redirect function. An attacker can manipulate the redirection process by injecting malicious code into the input.

Note

To exploit this vulnerability, the following conditions are required:

  1. The attacker should be able to control the input to response.redirect()

  2. express must not redirect before the template appears

  3. the browser must not complete redirection before:

  4. the user must click on the link in the template

Details

A cross-site scripting attack occurs when the attacker tricks a legitimate web-based application or site to accept a request as originating from a trusted source.

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 &lt; and > can be coded as &gt; 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 serve-static to version 1.16.0, 2.1.0 or higher.

References