Find, fix and prevent vulnerabilities in your code.
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: growl
- Introduced through: mocha@2.5.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › mocha@2.5.3 › growl@1.9.2Remediation: Upgrade to mocha@4.0.0.
Overview
growl is a package adding Growl support for Nodejs.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Command Injection due to unsafe use of the eval() function. Node.js provides the eval() function by default, and is used to translate strings into Javascript code. An attacker can craft a malicious payload to inject arbitrary commands.
Remediation
Upgrade growl to version 1.10.0 or higher.
References
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: form-data
- Introduced through: inliner@1.13.1, jsdom@6.5.1 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › request@2.88.2 › form-data@2.3.3
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jsdom@6.5.1 › request@2.88.2 › form-data@2.3.3
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › request@2.81.0 › form-data@2.1.4
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Predictable Value Range from Previous Values via the boundary value, which uses Math.random(). An attacker can manipulate HTTP request boundaries by exploiting predictable values, potentially leading to HTTP parameter pollution.
Remediation
Upgrade form-data to version 2.5.4, 3.0.4, 4.0.4 or higher.
References
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: babel-traverse
- Introduced through: babel-core@6.26.3, babel-cli@6.26.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-block-scoping@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-classes@6.24.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-parameters@6.24.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-helpers@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-block-scoping@6.26.0 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-classes@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-computed-properties@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-modules-commonjs@6.26.2 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-modules-amd@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-modules-systemjs@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-modules-umd@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-parameters@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-register@6.26.0 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › babel-register@6.26.0 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-classes@6.24.1 › babel-helper-function-name@6.24.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-function-name@6.24.1 › babel-helper-function-name@6.24.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-classes@6.24.1 › babel-helper-replace-supers@6.24.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-object-super@6.24.1 › babel-helper-replace-supers@6.24.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-parameters@6.24.1 › babel-helper-call-delegate@6.24.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-helpers@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-register@6.26.0 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › babel-register@6.26.0 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-classes@6.24.1 › babel-helper-function-name@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-function-name@6.24.1 › babel-helper-function-name@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-classes@6.24.1 › babel-helper-replace-supers@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-object-super@6.24.1 › babel-helper-replace-supers@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-modules-amd@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-modules-commonjs@6.26.2 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-modules-umd@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-modules-amd@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-classes@6.24.1 › babel-helper-define-map@6.26.0 › babel-helper-function-name@6.24.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-register@6.26.0 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-helpers@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › babel-register@6.26.0 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-helpers@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-classes@6.24.1 › babel-helper-define-map@6.26.0 › babel-helper-function-name@6.24.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-preset-es2015@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-modules-umd@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-modules-amd@6.24.1 › babel-plugin-transform-es2015-modules-commonjs@6.26.2 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs when using plugins that rely on the path.evaluate() or path.evaluateTruthy() internal Babel methods.
Note:
This is only exploitable if the attacker uses known affected plugins such as @babel/plugin-transform-runtime, @babel/preset-env when using its useBuiltIns option, and any "polyfill provider" plugin that depends on @babel/helper-define-polyfill-provider. No other plugins under the @babel/ namespace are impacted, but third-party plugins might be.
Users that only compile trusted code are not impacted.
Workaround
Users who are unable to upgrade the library can upgrade the affected plugins instead, to avoid triggering the vulnerable code path in affected @babel/traverse.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for babel-traverse.
References
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: hawk
- Introduced through: sqlite3@3.1.13
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › hawk@3.1.3
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › request@2.81.0 › hawk@3.1.3
Overview
hawk is a library for the HTTP Hawk Authentication Scheme.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Authentication Bypass. The incoming (client supplied) hash of the payload is trusted by the server and not verified before the signature is calculated.
A malicious actor in the middle can alter the payload and the server side will not identify the modification occurred because it simply uses the client provided value instead of verify the hash provided against the modified payload.
According to the maintainers this issue is to be considered out of scope as "payload hash validation is optional and up to developer to implement".
Remediation
There is no fixed version for hawk.
References
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: sha.js
- Introduced through: webpack@1.15.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › node-libs-browser@0.7.0 › crypto-browserify@3.3.0 › sha.js@2.2.6
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Function Call With Incorrect Argument Type due to missing type checks in the update function in the hash.js file. An attacker can manipulate input data by supplying crafted data that causes a hash rewind and unintended data processing.
PoC
const forgeHash = (data, payload) => JSON.stringify([payload, { length: -payload.length}, [...data]])
const sha = require('sha.js')
const { randomBytes } = require('crypto')
const sha256 = (...messages) => {
const hash = sha('sha256')
messages.forEach((m) => hash.update(m))
return hash.digest('hex')
}
const validMessage = [randomBytes(32), randomBytes(32), randomBytes(32)] // whatever
const payload = forgeHash(Buffer.concat(validMessage), 'Hashed input means safe')
const receivedMessage = JSON.parse(payload) // e.g. over network, whatever
console.log(sha256(...validMessage))
console.log(sha256(...receivedMessage))
console.log(receivedMessage[0])
Remediation
Upgrade sha.js to version 2.4.12 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: cross-spawn
- Introduced through: cross-env@1.0.8
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › cross-env@1.0.8 › cross-spawn@3.0.1Remediation: Upgrade to cross-env@5.2.0.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) due to improper input sanitization. An attacker can increase the CPU usage and crash the program by crafting a very large and well crafted string.
PoC
const { argument } = require('cross-spawn/lib/util/escape');
var str = "";
for (var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
str += "\\";
}
str += "◎";
console.log("start")
argument(str)
console.log("end")
// run `npm install cross-spawn` and `node attack.js`
// then the program will stuck forever with high CPU usage
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade cross-spawn to version 6.0.6, 7.0.5 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: utile
- Introduced through: jscs@2.11.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › prompt@0.2.14 › utile@0.2.1
Overview
utile is a drop-in replacement for util with some additional advantageous functions.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution through the createPath function. An attacker can disrupt service by supplying a crafted payload with Object.prototype setter to introduce or modify properties within the global prototype chain.
PoC
(async () => {
const lib = await import('utile');
var someObj = {}
console.log("Before Attack: ", JSON.stringify({}.__proto__));
try {
// for multiple functions, uncomment only one for each execution.
lib.createPath (someObj, [["__proto__"], "pollutedKey"], "pollutedValue")
} catch (e) { }
console.log("After Attack: ", JSON.stringify({}.__proto__));
delete Object.prototype.pollutedKey;
})();
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
There is no fixed version for utile.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: whet.extend
- Introduced through: inliner@1.13.1 and css-loader@0.19.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › svgo@0.6.6 › whet.extend@0.9.9
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-svgo@2.1.6 › svgo@0.7.2 › whet.extend@0.9.9
Overview
whet.extend is an A sharped version of port of jQuery.extend that actually works on node.js
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution due to improper user input sanitization when using the extend and _findValue functions.
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
There is no fixed version for whet.extend.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: sqlite3@3.1.13
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar@2.2.2Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@4.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar-pack@3.4.1 › tar@2.2.2
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Write. node-tar aims to guarantee that any file whose location would be modified by a symbolic link is not extracted. This is, in part, achieved by ensuring that extracted directories are not symlinks. Additionally, in order to prevent unnecessary stat calls to determine whether a given path is a directory, paths are cached when directories are created.
This logic was insufficient when extracting tar files that contained both a directory and a symlink with the same name as the directory, where the symlink and directory names in the archive entry used backslashes as a path separator on posix systems. The cache checking logic used both \ and / characters as path separators. However, \ is a valid filename character on posix systems.
By first creating a directory, and then replacing that directory with a symlink, it is possible to bypass node-tar symlink checks on directories, essentially allowing an untrusted tar file to symlink into an arbitrary location. This can lead to extracting arbitrary files into that location, thus allowing arbitrary file creation and overwrite.
Additionally, a similar confusion could arise on case-insensitive filesystems. If a tar archive contained a directory at FOO, followed by a symbolic link named foo, then on case-insensitive file systems, the creation of the symbolic link would remove the directory from the filesystem, but not from the internal directory cache, as it would not be treated as a cache hit. A subsequent file entry within the FOO directory would then be placed in the target of the symbolic link, thinking that the directory had already been created.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 6.1.7, 5.0.8, 4.4.16 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: sqlite3@3.1.13
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar@2.2.2Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@4.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar-pack@3.4.1 › tar@2.2.2
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Write. node-tar aims to guarantee that any file whose location would be modified by a symbolic link is not extracted. This is, in part, achieved by ensuring that extracted directories are not symlinks. Additionally, in order to prevent unnecessary stat calls to determine whether a given path is a directory, paths are cached when directories are created.
This logic is insufficient when extracting tar files that contain two directories and a symlink with names containing unicode values that normalized to the same value. Additionally, on Windows systems, long path portions would resolve to the same file system entities as their 8.3 "short path" counterparts.
A specially crafted tar archive can include directories with two forms of the path that resolve to the same file system entity, followed by a symbolic link with a name in the first form, lastly followed by a file using the second form. This leads to bypassing node-tar symlink checks on directories, essentially allowing an untrusted tar file to symlink into an arbitrary location and extracting arbitrary files into that location.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 6.1.9, 5.0.10, 4.4.18 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: sqlite3@3.1.13
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar@2.2.2Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@4.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar-pack@3.4.1 › tar@2.2.2
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Write. node-tar aims to guarantee that any file whose location would be outside of the extraction target directory is not extracted. This is, in part, accomplished by sanitizing absolute paths of entries within the archive, skipping archive entries that contain .. path portions, and resolving the sanitized paths against the extraction target directory.
This logic is insufficient on Windows systems when extracting tar files that contain a path that is not an absolute path, but specify a drive letter different from the extraction target, such as C:some\path. If the drive letter does not match the extraction target, for example D:\extraction\dir, then the result of path.resolve(extractionDirectory, entryPath) resolves against the current working directory on the C: drive, rather than the extraction target directory.
Additionally, a .. portion of the path can occur immediately after the drive letter, such as C:../foo, and is not properly sanitized by the logic that checks for .. within the normalized and split portions of the path.
Note: This only affects users of node-tar on Windows systems.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 6.1.9, 5.0.10, 4.4.18 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: sqlite3@3.1.13
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar@2.2.2Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@4.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar-pack@3.4.1 › tar@2.2.2
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Overwrite. This is due to insufficient symlink protection.
node-tar aims to guarantee that any file whose location would be modified by a symbolic link is not extracted. This is, in part, achieved by ensuring that extracted directories are not symlinks. Additionally, in order to prevent unnecessary stat calls to determine whether a given path is a directory, paths are cached when directories are created.
This logic is insufficient when extracting tar files that contain both a directory and a symlink with the same name as the directory. This order of operations results in the directory being created and added to the node-tar directory cache. When a directory is present in the directory cache, subsequent calls to mkdir for that directory are skipped.
However, this is also where node-tar checks for symlinks occur. By first creating a directory, and then replacing that directory with a symlink, it is possible to bypass node-tar symlink checks on directories, essentially allowing an untrusted tar file to symlink into an arbitrary location and subsequently extracting arbitrary files into that location.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 3.2.3, 4.4.15, 5.0.7, 6.1.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: sqlite3@3.1.13
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar@2.2.2Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@4.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar-pack@3.4.1 › tar@2.2.2
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Overwrite. This is due to insufficient absolute path sanitization.
node-tar aims to prevent extraction of absolute file paths by turning absolute paths into relative paths when the preservePaths flag is not set to true. This is achieved by stripping the absolute path root from any absolute file paths contained in a tar file. For example, the path /home/user/.bashrc would turn into home/user/.bashrc.
This logic is insufficient when file paths contain repeated path roots such as ////home/user/.bashrc. node-tar only strips a single path root from such paths. When given an absolute file path with repeating path roots, the resulting path (e.g. ///home/user/.bashrc) still resolves to an absolute path.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 3.2.2, 4.4.14, 5.0.6, 6.1.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: ajv
- Introduced through: sqlite3@3.1.13
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › request@2.81.0 › har-validator@4.2.1 › ajv@4.11.8Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@4.0.0.
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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade ajv to version 6.12.3 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: js-yaml
- Introduced through: css-loader@0.19.0, eslint@1.10.3 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-svgo@2.1.6 › svgo@0.7.2 › js-yaml@3.7.0Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › js-yaml@3.4.5Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › svgo@0.6.6 › js-yaml@3.6.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › js-yaml@3.4.6
Overview
js-yaml is a human-friendly data serialization language.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary Code Execution. When an object with an executable toString() property used as a map key, it will execute that function. This happens only for load(), which should not be used with untrusted data anyway. safeLoad() is not affected because it can't parse functions.
Remediation
Upgrade js-yaml to version 3.13.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: serialize-javascript
- Introduced through: copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0 › serialize-javascript@1.9.1Remediation: Upgrade to copy-webpack-plugin@5.0.5.
Overview
serialize-javascript is a package to serialize JavaScript to a superset of JSON that includes regular expressions and functions.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS). It does not properly sanitize against unsafe characters in serialized regular expressions. This vulnerability is not affected on Node.js environment since Node.js's implementation of RegExp.prototype.toString() backslash-escapes all forward slashes in regular expressions.
NOTE: This vulnerability has also been identified as: CVE-2019-16769
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade serialize-javascript to version 2.1.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: serialize-javascript
- Introduced through: copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0 › serialize-javascript@1.9.1Remediation: Upgrade to copy-webpack-plugin@5.0.5.
Overview
serialize-javascript is a package to serialize JavaScript to a superset of JSON that includes regular expressions and functions.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS). It does not properly sanitize against unsafe characters in serialized regular expressions. This vulnerability is not affected on Node.js environment since Node.js's implementation of RegExp.prototype.toString() backslash-escapes all forward slashes in regular expressions.
NOTE: This vulnerability has also been identified as: CVE-2019-16772
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade serialize-javascript to version 2.1.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: serialize-javascript
- Introduced through: copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0 › serialize-javascript@1.9.1Remediation: Upgrade to copy-webpack-plugin@5.1.2.
Overview
serialize-javascript is a package to serialize JavaScript to a superset of JSON that includes regular expressions and functions.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary Code Injection. An object like {"foo": /1"/, "bar": "a\"@__R-<UID>-0__@"} would be serialized as {"foo": /1"/, "bar": "a\/1"/}, meaning an attacker could escape out of bar if they controlled both foo and bar and were able to guess the value of <UID>. UID is generated once on startup, is chosen using Math.random() and has a keyspace of roughly 4 billion, so within the realm of an online attack.
PoC
eval('('+ serialize({"foo": /1" + console.log(1)/i, "bar": '"@__R-<UID>-0__@'}) + ')');
Remediation
Upgrade serialize-javascript to version 3.1.0 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: angular
- Introduced through: angular@1.8.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › angular@1.8.3
Overview
angular is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). A regular expression used to split the value of the ng-srcset directive is vulnerable to super-linear runtime due to backtracking. With large carefully-crafted input, this can result in catastrophic backtracking and cause a denial of service.
Note:
This package is EOL and will not receive any updates to address this issue. Users should migrate to @angular/core.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for angular.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: braces
- Introduced through: babel-cli@6.26.0 and webpack@1.15.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › chokidar@1.7.0 › anymatch@1.3.2 › micromatch@2.3.11 › braces@1.8.5
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › watchpack@0.2.9 › chokidar@1.7.0 › anymatch@1.3.2 › micromatch@2.3.11 › braces@1.8.5Remediation: Upgrade to webpack@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › watchpack@0.2.9 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2
Overview
braces is a Bash-like brace expansion, implemented in JavaScript.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Excessive Platform Resource Consumption within a Loop due improper limitation of the number of characters it can handle, through the parse function. An attacker can cause the application to allocate excessive memory and potentially crash by sending imbalanced braces as input.
PoC
const { braces } = require('micromatch');
console.log("Executing payloads...");
const maxRepeats = 10;
for (let repeats = 1; repeats <= maxRepeats; repeats += 1) {
const payload = '{'.repeat(repeats*90000);
console.log(`Testing with ${repeats} repeats...`);
const startTime = Date.now();
braces(payload);
const endTime = Date.now();
const executionTime = endTime - startTime;
console.log(`Regex executed in ${executionTime / 1000}s.\n`);
}
Remediation
Upgrade braces to version 3.0.3 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: loader-utils
- Introduced through: babel-loader@6.4.1, css-loader@0.19.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-loader@6.4.1 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to babel-loader@7.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@0.26.2.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › extract-text-webpack-plugin@0.8.2 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to extract-text-webpack-plugin@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › postcss-loader@0.6.0 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to postcss-loader@1.3.2.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › style-loader@0.12.4 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to style-loader@0.13.2.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to webpack@3.0.0.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution in parseQuery function via the name variable in parseQuery.js. This pollutes the prototype of the object returned by parseQuery and not the global Object prototype (which is the commonly understood definition of Prototype Pollution). Therefore, the actual impact will depend on how applications utilize the returned object and how they filter unwanted 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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade loader-utils to version 1.4.1, 2.0.3 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0, jscs@2.11.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to html-webpack-plugin@2.10.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to babel-eslint@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › inquirer@0.11.4 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › cheerio@0.19.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › xmlbuilder@3.1.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › jscs-jsdoc@1.3.2 › jsdoctypeparser@1.2.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution through the zipObjectDeep function due to improper user input sanitization in the baseZipObject function.
PoC
lodash.zipobjectdeep:
const zipObjectDeep = require("lodash.zipobjectdeep");
let emptyObject = {};
console.log(`[+] Before prototype pollution : ${emptyObject.polluted}`);
//[+] Before prototype pollution : undefined
zipObjectDeep(["constructor.prototype.polluted"], [true]);
//we inject our malicious attributes in the vulnerable function
console.log(`[+] After prototype pollution : ${emptyObject.polluted}`);
//[+] After prototype pollution : true
lodash:
const test = require("lodash");
let emptyObject = {};
console.log(`[+] Before prototype pollution : ${emptyObject.polluted}`);
//[+] Before prototype pollution : undefined
test.zipObjectDeep(["constructor.prototype.polluted"], [true]);
//we inject our malicious attributes in the vulnerable function
console.log(`[+] After prototype pollution : ${emptyObject.polluted}`);
//[+] After prototype pollution : true
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.17 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: minimatch
- Introduced through: babel-eslint@4.1.8, babel-jscs@2.0.5 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › minimatch@2.0.10Remediation: Upgrade to babel-eslint@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › minimatch@2.0.10
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › minimatch@2.0.10
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › mocha@2.5.3 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to mocha@3.0.0.
Overview
minimatch is a minimal matching utility.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via complicated and illegal regexes.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade minimatch to version 3.0.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: minimatch
- Introduced through: babel-eslint@4.1.8, babel-jscs@2.0.5 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › minimatch@2.0.10Remediation: Upgrade to babel-eslint@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › minimatch@2.0.10Remediation: Open PR to patch minimatch@2.0.10.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › minimatch@2.0.10Remediation: Open PR to patch minimatch@2.0.10.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › mocha@2.5.3 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to mocha@3.0.0.
Overview
minimatch is a minimal matching utility.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS).
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade minimatch to version 3.0.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: mocha
- Introduced through: mocha@2.5.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › mocha@2.5.3Remediation: Upgrade to mocha@10.1.0.
Overview
mocha is a javascript test framework for node.js & the browser.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) in the clean function in utils.js.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade mocha to version 10.1.0 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: mocha
- Introduced through: mocha@2.5.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › mocha@2.5.3Remediation: Upgrade to mocha@6.0.0.
Overview
mocha is a javascript test framework for node.js & the browser.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). If the stack trace in utils.js begins with a large error message (>= 20k characters), and full-trace is not undisabled, utils.stackTraceFilter() will take exponential time to run.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade mocha to version 6.0.0 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: nth-check
- Introduced through: inliner@1.13.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › cheerio@0.19.0 › css-select@1.0.0 › nth-check@1.0.2
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) when parsing crafted invalid CSS nth-checks, due to the sub-pattern \s*(?:([+-]?)\s*(\d+))? in RE_NTH_ELEMENT with quantified overlapping adjacency.
PoC
var nthCheck = require("nth-check")
for(var i = 1; i <= 50000; i++) {
var time = Date.now();
var attack_str = '2n' + ' '.repeat(i*10000)+"!";
try {
nthCheck.parse(attack_str)
}
catch(err) {
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:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade nth-check to version 2.0.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: sqlite3
- Introduced through: sqlite3@3.1.13
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@5.0.3.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) which will invoke the toString function of the passed parameter. If passed an invalid Function object it will throw and crash the V8 engine.
PoC
let sqlite3 = require('sqlite3').verbose();
let db = new sqlite3.Database(':memory:');
db.serialize(function() {
db.run("CREATE TABLE lorem (info TEXT)");
db.run("INSERT INTO lorem VALUES (?)", [{toString: 23}]);
});
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its intended and legitimate users.
Unlike other vulnerabilities, DoS attacks usually do not aim at breaching security. Rather, they are focused on making websites and services unavailable to genuine users resulting in downtime.
One popular Denial of Service vulnerability is DDoS (a Distributed Denial of Service), an attack that attempts to clog network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines.
When it comes to open source libraries, DoS vulnerabilities allow attackers to trigger such a crash or crippling of the service by using a flaw either in the application code or from the use of open source libraries.
Two common types of DoS vulnerabilities:
High CPU/Memory Consumption- An attacker sending crafted requests that could cause the system to take a disproportionate amount of time to process. For example, commons-fileupload:commons-fileupload.
Crash - An attacker sending crafted requests that could cause the system to crash. For Example, npm
wspackage
Remediation
Upgrade sqlite3 to version 5.0.3 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: ssri
- Introduced through: copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0 › cacache@10.0.4 › ssri@5.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to copy-webpack-plugin@5.0.0.
Overview
ssri is a Standard Subresource Integrity library -- parses, serializes, generates, and verifies integrity metadata according to the SRI spec.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). ssri processes SRIs using a regular expression which is vulnerable to a denial of service. Malicious SRIs could take an extremely long time to process, leading to denial of service. This issue only affects consumers using the strict option.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade ssri to version 6.0.2, 7.1.1, 8.0.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: unset-value
- Introduced through: babel-cli@6.26.0 and webpack@1.15.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.13 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › watchpack@0.2.9 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › watchpack@0.2.9 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › watchpack@0.2.9 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › watchpack@0.2.9 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.13 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › watchpack@0.2.9 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › cache-base@1.0.1 › unset-value@1.0.0
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the unset function in index.js, because it allows access to object prototype properties.
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade unset-value to version 2.0.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: hawk
- Introduced through: sqlite3@3.1.13
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › hawk@3.1.3Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@5.0.3.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › request@2.81.0 › hawk@3.1.3Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@4.0.0.
Overview
hawk is a library for the HTTP Hawk Authentication Scheme.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) in header parsing where each added character in the attacker's input increases the computation time exponentially.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade hawk to version 9.0.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: webpack-dev-middleware
- Introduced through: webpack-dev-middleware@1.12.2
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack-dev-middleware@1.12.2Remediation: Upgrade to webpack-dev-middleware@5.3.4.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Path Traversal due to insufficient validation of the supplied URL address before returning the local file. This issue allows accessing any file on the developer's machine. The middleware can operate with either the physical filesystem or a virtualized in-memory memfs filesystem. When the writeToDisk configuration option is set to true, the physical filesystem is utilized. The getFilenameFromUrl method parses the URL and constructs the local file path by stripping the public path prefix from the URL and appending the unescaped path suffix to the outputPath. Since the URL is not unescaped and normalized automatically before calling the middleware, it is possible to use %2e and %2f sequences to perform a path traversal attack.
Notes:
This vulnerability is exploitable without any specific configurations, allowing an attacker to access and exfiltrate content from any file on the developer's machine.
If the development server is exposed on a public IP address or
0.0.0.0, an attacker on the local network can access the files without victim interaction.If the server permits access from third-party domains, a malicious link could lead to local file exfiltration when visited by the victim.
PoC
A blank project can be created containing the following configuration file webpack.config.js:
module.exports = { devServer: { devMiddleware: { writeToDisk: true } } };
When started, it is possible to access any local file, e.g. /etc/passwd:
$ curl localhost:8080/public/..%2f..%2f..%2f..%2f../etc/passwd
root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash
daemon:x:1:1:daemon:/usr/sbin:/usr/sbin/nologin
bin:x:2:2:bin:/bin:/usr/sbin/nologin
sys:x:3:3:sys:/dev:/usr/sbin/nologin
sync:x:4:65534:sync:/bin:/bin/sync
games:x:5:60:games:/usr/games:/usr/sbin/nologin
Remediation
Upgrade webpack-dev-middleware to version 5.3.4, 6.1.2, 7.1.0 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0, jscs@2.11.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to html-webpack-plugin@2.10.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to babel-eslint@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › inquirer@0.11.4 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › cheerio@0.19.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › xmlbuilder@3.1.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › jscs-jsdoc@1.3.2 › jsdoctypeparser@1.2.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The function defaultsDeep could be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype using a constructor payload.
PoC by Snyk
const mergeFn = require('lodash').defaultsDeep;
const payload = '{"constructor": {"prototype": {"a0": true}}}'
function check() {
mergeFn({}, JSON.parse(payload));
if (({})[`a0`] === true) {
console.log(`Vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via ${payload}`);
}
}
check();
For more information, check out our blog post
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.12 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0, jscs@2.11.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to html-webpack-plugin@2.10.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to babel-eslint@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › inquirer@0.11.4 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › cheerio@0.19.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › xmlbuilder@3.1.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › jscs-jsdoc@1.3.2 › jsdoctypeparser@1.2.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the set and setwith functions due to improper user input sanitization.
PoC
lod = require('lodash')
lod.set({}, "__proto__[test2]", "456")
console.log(Object.prototype)
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.17 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0, jscs@2.11.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to html-webpack-plugin@2.10.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to babel-eslint@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › inquirer@0.11.4 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › cheerio@0.19.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › xmlbuilder@3.1.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › jscs-jsdoc@1.3.2 › jsdoctypeparser@1.2.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The functions merge, mergeWith, and defaultsDeep could be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype. This is due to an incomplete fix to CVE-2018-3721.
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.11 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash.merge
- Introduced through: eslint@1.10.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › lodash.merge@3.3.2Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@2.0.0.
Overview
lodash.merge is a Lodash method _.merge exported as a Node.js module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The functions merge, mergeWith, and defaultsDeep could be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype. This is due to an incomplete fix to CVE-2018-3721.
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade lodash.merge to version 4.6.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0, jscs@2.11.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to html-webpack-plugin@2.10.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to babel-eslint@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › inquirer@0.11.4 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › cheerio@0.19.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › xmlbuilder@3.1.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › jscs-jsdoc@1.3.2 › jsdoctypeparser@1.2.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Code Injection via template.
PoC
var _ = require('lodash');
_.template('', { variable: '){console.log(process.env)}; with(obj' })()
Remediation
Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.21 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: shelljs
- Introduced through: eslint@1.10.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › shelljs@0.5.3Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@4.0.0.
Overview
shelljs is a wrapper for the Unix shell commands for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Privilege Management. When ShellJS is used to create shell scripts which may be running as root, users with low-level privileges on the system can leak sensitive information such as passwords (depending on implementation) from the standard output of the privileged process OR shutdown privileged ShellJS processes via the exec function when triggering EACCESS errors.
Note: Thi only impacts the synchronous version of shell.exec().
Remediation
Upgrade shelljs to version 0.8.5 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: js-yaml
- Introduced through: css-loader@0.19.0, eslint@1.10.3 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-svgo@2.1.6 › svgo@0.7.2 › js-yaml@3.7.0Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › js-yaml@3.4.5Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › svgo@0.6.6 › js-yaml@3.6.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › js-yaml@3.4.6
Overview
js-yaml is a human-friendly data serialization language.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the merge function. An attacker can alter object prototypes by supplying specially crafted YAML documents containing __proto__ properties. This can lead to unexpected behavior or security issues in applications that process untrusted YAML input.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be mitigated by running the server with node --disable-proto=delete or by using Deno, which has pollution protection enabled by default.
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade js-yaml to version 3.14.2, 4.1.1 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: request
- Introduced through: inliner@1.13.1, jsdom@6.5.1 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › request@2.88.2
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jsdom@6.5.1 › request@2.88.2
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › request@2.81.0
Overview
request is a simplified http request client.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Server-side Request Forgery (SSRF) due to insufficient checks in the lib/redirect.js file by allowing insecure redirects in the default configuration, via an attacker-controller server that does a cross-protocol redirect (HTTP to HTTPS, or HTTPS to HTTP).
NOTE: request package has been deprecated, so a fix is not expected. See https://github.com/request/request/issues/3142.
Remediation
A fix was pushed into the master branch but not yet published.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: sqlite3@3.1.13
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar@2.2.2
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar-pack@3.4.1 › tar@2.2.2
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Uncontrolled Resource Consumption ('Resource Exhaustion') due to the lack of folders count validation during the folder creation process. An attacker who generates a large number of sub-folders can consume memory on the system running the software and even crash the client within few seconds of running it using a path with too many sub-folders inside.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 6.2.1 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tough-cookie
- Introduced through: jsdom@6.5.1, inliner@1.13.1 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jsdom@6.5.1 › tough-cookie@2.5.0Remediation: Upgrade to jsdom@16.5.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › request@2.88.2 › tough-cookie@2.5.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jsdom@6.5.1 › request@2.88.2 › tough-cookie@2.5.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › request@2.81.0 › tough-cookie@2.3.4
Overview
tough-cookie is a RFC6265 Cookies and CookieJar module for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution due to improper handling of Cookies when using CookieJar in rejectPublicSuffixes=false mode. Due to an issue with the manner in which the objects are initialized, an attacker can expose or modify a limited amount of property information on those objects. There is no impact to availability.
PoC
// PoC.js
async function main(){
var tough = require("tough-cookie");
var cookiejar = new tough.CookieJar(undefined,{rejectPublicSuffixes:false});
// Exploit cookie
await cookiejar.setCookie(
"Slonser=polluted; Domain=__proto__; Path=/notauth",
"https://__proto__/admin"
);
// normal cookie
var cookie = await cookiejar.setCookie(
"Auth=Lol; Domain=google.com; Path=/notauth",
"https://google.com/"
);
//Exploit cookie
var a = {};
console.log(a["/notauth"]["Slonser"])
}
main();
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade tough-cookie to version 4.1.3 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: json5
- Introduced through: babel-core@6.26.3, babel-cli@6.26.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-core@6.26.3 › json5@0.5.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › babel-core@6.26.3 › json5@0.5.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-loader@6.4.1 › loader-utils@0.2.17 › json5@0.5.1Remediation: Upgrade to babel-loader@7.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › loader-utils@0.2.17 › json5@0.5.1Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@0.26.2.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › extract-text-webpack-plugin@0.8.2 › loader-utils@0.2.17 › json5@0.5.1Remediation: Upgrade to extract-text-webpack-plugin@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › postcss-loader@0.6.0 › loader-utils@0.2.17 › json5@0.5.1Remediation: Upgrade to postcss-loader@1.3.2.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › style-loader@0.12.4 › loader-utils@0.2.17 › json5@0.5.1Remediation: Upgrade to style-loader@0.13.2.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › loader-utils@0.2.17 › json5@0.5.1Remediation: Upgrade to webpack@3.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-core@6.26.3 › babel-register@6.26.0 › babel-core@6.26.3 › json5@0.5.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › babel-register@6.26.0 › babel-core@6.26.3 › json5@0.5.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › json5@0.4.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › json5@0.4.0
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › json5@0.4.0
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the parse method , which does not restrict parsing of keys named __proto__, allowing specially crafted strings to pollute the prototype of the resulting object. This pollutes the prototype of the object returned by JSON5.parse and not the global Object prototype (which is the commonly understood definition of Prototype Pollution). Therefore, the actual impact will depend on how applications utilize the returned object and how they filter unwanted 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
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade json5 to version 1.0.2, 2.2.2 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: angular
- Introduced through: angular@1.8.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › angular@1.8.3
Overview
angular is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input in the srcset attribute, which allows bypassing the imgSrcSanitizationTrustedUrlList allowlist. An attacker can manipulate the content presented to other users by setting a srcset value to retrieve data from an unintended domain.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for angular.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: angular
- Introduced through: angular@1.8.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › angular@1.8.3
Overview
angular is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Incomplete Filtering of Special Elements. The srcset attribute in an HTML <source> element can be a vector for content spoofing. An attacker can manipulate the content presented to other users by interpolating a srcset value directly that doesn't comply with image source restrictions, or by using the ngAttrSrcset directive.
Note: The ngSrcset and ngPropSrcset directives are not attack vectors for this vulnerability.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for angular.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: angular
- Introduced through: angular@1.8.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › angular@1.8.3
Overview
angular is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Incomplete Filtering of Special Elements due to improper sanitization of the href and xlink:href attributes in <image> SVG elements. An attacker can bypass image source restrictions and negatively affect the application's performance and behavior by using too large or slow-to-load images.
Note:
The AngularJS project is End-of-Life and will not receive any updates to address this issue. For more information see here https://docs.angularjs.org/misc/version-support-status .
Remediation
There is no fixed version for angular.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: hoek
- Introduced through: sqlite3@3.1.13
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › hawk@3.1.3 › hoek@2.16.3Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@5.0.3.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › hawk@3.1.3 › boom@2.10.1 › hoek@2.16.3Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@5.0.3.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › hawk@3.1.3 › sntp@1.0.9 › hoek@2.16.3Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@5.0.3.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › request@2.81.0 › hawk@3.1.3 › hoek@2.16.3Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@4.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › hawk@3.1.3 › cryptiles@2.0.5 › boom@2.10.1 › hoek@2.16.3Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@5.0.3.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › request@2.81.0 › hawk@3.1.3 › boom@2.10.1 › hoek@2.16.3Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@4.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › request@2.81.0 › hawk@3.1.3 › sntp@1.0.9 › hoek@2.16.3Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@4.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › request@2.81.0 › hawk@3.1.3 › cryptiles@2.0.5 › boom@2.10.1 › hoek@2.16.3Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@4.0.0.
Overview
hoek is an Utility methods for the hapi ecosystem.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The utilities function allow modification of the Object prototype. If an attacker can control part of the structure passed to this function, they could add or modify an existing property.
PoC by Olivier Arteau (HoLyVieR)
var Hoek = require('hoek');
var malicious_payload = '{"__proto__":{"oops":"It works !"}}';
var a = {};
console.log("Before : " + a.oops);
Hoek.merge({}, JSON.parse(malicious_payload));
console.log("After : " + a.oops);
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade hoek to version 4.2.1, 5.0.3 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0, jscs@2.11.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to html-webpack-plugin@2.10.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Open PR to patch lodash@3.10.1.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to babel-eslint@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Open PR to patch lodash@3.10.1.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › inquirer@0.11.4 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › cheerio@0.19.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Open PR to patch lodash@3.10.1.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › xmlbuilder@3.1.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Open PR to patch lodash@3.10.1.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Open PR to patch lodash@3.10.1.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Open PR to patch lodash@3.10.1.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Open PR to patch lodash@3.10.1.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › jscs-jsdoc@1.3.2 › jsdoctypeparser@1.2.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Open PR to patch lodash@3.10.1.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Open PR to patch lodash@3.10.1.
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The utilities function allow modification of the Object prototype. If an attacker can control part of the structure passed to this function, they could add or modify an existing property.
PoC by Olivier Arteau (HoLyVieR)
var _= require('lodash');
var malicious_payload = '{"__proto__":{"oops":"It works !"}}';
var a = {};
console.log("Before : " + a.oops);
_.merge({}, JSON.parse(malicious_payload));
console.log("After : " + a.oops);
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.5 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash.merge
- Introduced through: eslint@1.10.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › lodash.merge@3.3.2Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@2.0.0.
Overview
lodash.merge is a Lodash method _.merge exported as a Node.js module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The utilities function allow modification of the Object prototype. If an attacker can control part of the structure passed to this function, they could add or modify an existing property.
PoC by Olivier Arteau (HoLyVieR)
var _= require('lodash');
var malicious_payload = '{"__proto__":{"oops":"It works !"}}';
var a = {};
console.log("Before : " + a.oops);
_.merge({}, JSON.parse(malicious_payload));
console.log("After : " + a.oops);
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade lodash.merge to version 4.6.2 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: inflight
- Introduced through: babel-cli@6.26.0, rimraf@2.7.1 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › glob@5.0.15 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › glob@5.0.15 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0 › cacache@10.0.4 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0 › globby@7.1.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › vow-fs@0.3.6 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0 › cacache@10.0.4 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0 › cacache@10.0.4 › move-concurrently@1.0.1 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › prompt@0.2.14 › utile@0.2.1 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar-pack@3.4.1 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › file-entry-cache@1.3.1 › flat-cache@1.3.4 › rimraf@2.6.3 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › regenerator@0.8.40 › commoner@0.10.8 › glob@5.0.15 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › regenerator@0.8.40 › commoner@0.10.8 › glob@5.0.15 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0 › cacache@10.0.4 › move-concurrently@1.0.1 › copy-concurrently@1.0.5 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar@2.2.2 › fstream@1.0.12 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar-pack@3.4.1 › fstream@1.0.12 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › regenerator@0.8.40 › commoner@0.10.8 › glob@5.0.15 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar-pack@3.4.1 › tar@2.2.2 › fstream@1.0.12 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar-pack@3.4.1 › fstream-ignore@1.0.5 › fstream@1.0.12 › rimraf@2.7.1 › glob@7.2.3 › inflight@1.0.6
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime via the makeres function due to improperly deleting keys from the reqs object after execution of callbacks. This behavior causes the keys to remain in the reqs object, which leads to resource exhaustion.
Exploiting this vulnerability results in crashing the node process or in the application crash.
Note: This library is not maintained, and currently, there is no fix for this issue. To overcome this vulnerability, several dependent packages have eliminated the use of this library.
To trigger the memory leak, an attacker would need to have the ability to execute or influence the asynchronous operations that use the inflight module within the application. This typically requires access to the internal workings of the server or application, which is not commonly exposed to remote users. Therefore, “Attack vector” is marked as “Local”.
PoC
const inflight = require('inflight');
function testInflight() {
let i = 0;
function scheduleNext() {
let key = `key-${i++}`;
const callback = () => {
};
for (let j = 0; j < 1000000; j++) {
inflight(key, callback);
}
setImmediate(scheduleNext);
}
if (i % 100 === 0) {
console.log(process.memoryUsage());
}
scheduleNext();
}
testInflight();
Remediation
There is no fixed version for inflight.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: serialize-javascript
- Introduced through: copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › copy-webpack-plugin@4.6.0 › serialize-javascript@1.9.1Remediation: Upgrade to copy-webpack-plugin@9.0.1.
Overview
serialize-javascript is a package to serialize JavaScript to a superset of JSON that includes regular expressions and functions.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) due to unsanitized URLs. An Attacker can introduce unsafe HTML characters through non-http URLs.
PoC
const serialize = require('serialize-javascript');
let x = serialize({
x: new URL("x:</script>")
});
console.log(x)
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade serialize-javascript to version 6.0.2 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: pathval
- Introduced through: jscs@2.11.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › pathval@0.1.1
Overview
pathval is an Object value retrieval given a string path
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution.
PoC
var pathval = require('pathval');
var obj = {};
pathval.setPathValue(obj, '__proto__.polluted', true);
console.log(polluted); // true
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade pathval to version 1.1.1 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: js-yaml
- Introduced through: css-loader@0.19.0, eslint@1.10.3 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-svgo@2.1.6 › svgo@0.7.2 › js-yaml@3.7.0Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › js-yaml@3.4.5Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › svgo@0.6.6 › js-yaml@3.6.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › js-yaml@3.4.6
Overview
js-yaml is a human-friendly data serialization language.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS). The parsing of a specially crafted YAML file may exhaust the system 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:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade js-yaml to version 3.13.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: marked
- Introduced through: angular-marked@1.2.2
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › angular-marked@1.2.2 › marked@0.3.19
Overview
marked is a low-level compiler for parsing markdown without caching or blocking for long periods of time.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). The em regex within src/rules.js file have multiple unused capture groups which could lead to a denial of service attack if user input is reachable.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade marked to version 1.1.1 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: webpack
- Introduced through: webpack@1.15.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0Remediation: Upgrade to webpack@5.94.0.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) via DOM clobbering in the AutoPublicPathRuntimeModule class. Non-script HTML elements with unsanitized attributes such as name and id can be leveraged to execute code in the victim's browser. An attacker who can control such elements on a page that includes Webpack-generated files, can cause subsequent scripts to be loaded from a malicious domain.
PoC
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>Webpack Example</title>
<!-- Attacker-controlled Script-less HTML Element starts--!>
<img name="currentScript" src="https://attacker.controlled.server/"></img>
<!-- Attacker-controlled Script-less HTML Element ends--!>
</head>
<script src="./dist/webpack-gadgets.bundle.js"></script>
<body>
</body>
</html>
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade webpack to version 5.94.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: minimist
- Introduced through: html-inline@1.2.0, webpack@1.15.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-inline@1.2.0 › minimist@1.1.3
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › optimist@0.6.1 › minimist@0.0.10
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-inline@1.2.0 › trumpet@1.7.2 › html-select@2.3.24 › minimist@0.0.10
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-inline@1.2.0 › trumpet@1.7.2 › html-tokenize@1.2.5 › minimist@0.0.10
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › mocha@2.5.3 › mkdirp@0.5.1 › minimist@0.0.8Remediation: Upgrade to mocha@6.2.3.
Overview
minimist is a parse argument options module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The library could be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype using a constructor or __proto__ payload.
PoC by Snyk
require('minimist')('--__proto__.injected0 value0'.split(' '));
console.log(({}).injected0 === 'value0'); // true
require('minimist')('--constructor.prototype.injected1 value1'.split(' '));
console.log(({}).injected1 === 'value1'); // true
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade minimist to version 0.2.1, 1.2.3 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: underscore
- Introduced through: jscs@2.11.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › jsonlint@1.6.3 › nomnom@1.8.1 › underscore@1.6.0
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
- Vulnerable module: got
- Introduced through: inliner@1.13.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › update-notifier@0.5.0 › latest-version@1.0.1 › package-json@1.2.0 › got@3.3.1
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Open Redirect due to missing verification of requested URLs. It allowed a victim to be redirected to a UNIX socket.
Remediation
Upgrade got to version 11.8.5, 12.1.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: angular
- Introduced through: angular@1.8.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › angular@1.8.3
Overview
angular is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) by providing a custom locale rule that makes it possible to assign the parameter in posPre: ' '.repeat() of NUMBER_FORMATS.PATTERNS[1].posPre with a very high value.
Note:
This package has been deprecated and is no longer maintained.
The vulnerable versions are 1.7.0 and higher.
PoC:
class AppCtrl {
constructor($locale, $timeout) {
'ngInject';
const ctrl = this;
ctrl.currencySymbol = '$';
ctrl.amount = 100;
ctrl.posPre = $locale.NUMBER_FORMATS.PATTERNS[1].posPre;
ctrl.onPosPreChange = () => {
$locale.NUMBER_FORMATS.PATTERNS[1].posPre = ctrl.posPre;
const amount = ctrl.amount;
ctrl.amount = 0;
$timeout(() => (ctrl.amount = amount));
};
ctrl.onReDos = () => {
ctrl.currencySymbol = '';
ctrl.posPre = ' '.repeat(1000000);
$locale.NUMBER_FORMATS.PATTERNS[1].posPre = ctrl.posPre;
};
}
}
export default AppCtrl;
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for angular.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: angular
- Introduced through: angular@1.8.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › angular@1.8.3
Overview
angular is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the angular.copy() utility function due to the usage of an insecure regular expression.
Exploiting this vulnerability is possible by a large carefully-crafted input, which can result in catastrophic backtracking.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for angular.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: angular
- Introduced through: angular@1.8.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › angular@1.8.3
Overview
angular is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the $resource service due to the usage of an insecure regular expression.
Exploiting this vulnerability is possible by a large carefully-crafted input, which can result in catastrophic backtracking.
PoC
The vulnerability manifests itself when the $resource service is used with a URL that contains a large number of slashes followed by a non-slash character (for example, /some/url/////.../////foo):
$resource('/some/url/${manySlashesFollowedByNonSlash}`).query();
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for angular.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: angular
- Introduced through: angular@1.8.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › angular@1.8.3
Overview
angular is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the <input type="url"> element due to the usage of an insecure regular expression in the input[url] functionality.
Exploiting this vulnerability is possible by a large carefully-crafted input, which can result in catastrophic backtracking.
PoC
The vulnerability manifests itself when a <input type="url"> element is filled with an invalid URL consisting of any scheme followed by a large number of slashes (for example, http://///.../////):
<input type="url" ng-model="urlWithManySlashes" />
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for angular.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: browserslist
- Introduced through: autoprefixer@6.7.7 and css-loader@0.19.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › autoprefixer@6.7.7 › browserslist@1.7.7Remediation: Upgrade to autoprefixer@9.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › autoprefixer@6.7.7 › browserslist@1.7.7Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-merge-rules@2.1.2 › browserslist@1.7.7Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-merge-rules@2.1.2 › caniuse-api@1.6.1 › browserslist@1.7.7Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
Overview
browserslist is a Share target browsers between different front-end tools, like Autoprefixer, Stylelint and babel-env-preset
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) during parsing of queries.
PoC by Yeting Li
var browserslist = require("browserslist")
function build_attack(n) {
var ret = "> "
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {
ret += "1"
}
return ret + "!";
}
// browserslist('> 1%')
//browserslist(build_attack(500000))
for(var i = 1; i <= 500000; i++) {
if (i % 1000 == 0) {
var time = Date.now();
var attack_str = build_attack(i)
try{
browserslist(attack_str);
var time_cost = Date.now() - time;
console.log("attack_str.length: " + attack_str.length + ": " + time_cost+" ms");
}
catch(e){
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:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade browserslist to version 4.16.5 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: color-string
- Introduced through: css-loader@0.19.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-colormin@2.2.2 › colormin@1.1.2 › color@0.11.4 › color-string@0.3.0
Overview
color-string is a Parser and generator for CSS color strings
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the hwb regular expression in the cs.get.hwb function in index.js. The affected regular expression exhibits quadratic worst-case time complexity.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade color-string to version 1.5.5 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: css-what
- Introduced through: inliner@1.13.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › cheerio@0.19.0 › css-select@1.0.0 › css-what@1.0.0
Overview
css-what is an a CSS selector parser
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) due to the usage of insecure regular expression in the re_attr variable of index.js.
The exploitation of this vulnerability could be triggered via the parse function.
PoC
const parse = require('css-what');
const payload = '\\=\\='.repeat(800000);
parse('[' + payload);
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade css-what to version 2.1.3 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: highlight.js
- Introduced through: highlight.js@9.18.5
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › highlight.js@9.18.5Remediation: Upgrade to highlight.js@10.4.1.
Overview
highlight.js is a syntax highlighter written in JavaScript. It works in the browser as well as on the server. It works with pretty much any markup, doesn’t depend on any framework, and has automatic language detection.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via Exponential and Polynomial catastrophic backtracking in multiple language highlighting.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade highlight.js to version 10.4.1 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: html-minifier
- Introduced through: html-loader@0.4.5 and html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-loader@0.4.5 › html-minifier@3.5.21
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0 › html-minifier@1.5.0
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) through the value parameter of the minify function. This vulnerability derives from the usage of insecure regular expression in reCustomIgnore.
PoC
const { minify } = require('html-minifier');
const testReDoS = (repeatCount) => {
const input = '\t'.repeat(repeatCount) + '.\t1x';
const startTime = performance.now();
try {
minify(input);
} catch (e) {
console.error('Error during minification:', e);
}
const endTime = performance.now();
console.log(`Input length: ${repeatCount} - Processing time: ${endTime - startTime} ms`);
};
for (let i = 5000; i <= 60000; i += 5000) {
testReDoS(i);
}
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for html-minifier.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: is-svg
- Introduced through: css-loader@0.19.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-svgo@2.1.6 › is-svg@2.1.0Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
Overview
is-svg is a Check if a string or buffer is SVG
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). If an attacker provides a malicious string, is-svg will get stuck processing the input for a very long time.
You are only affected if you use this package on a server that accepts SVG as user-input.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade is-svg to version 4.2.2 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: is-svg
- Introduced through: css-loader@0.19.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-svgo@2.1.6 › is-svg@2.1.0Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
Overview
is-svg is a Check if a string or buffer is SVG
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the removeDtdMarkupDeclarations and entityRegex regular expressions, bypassing the fix for CVE-2021-28092.
PoC by Yeting Li
//1) 1st ReDoS caused by the two sub-regexes [A-Z]+ and [^>]* in `removeDtdMarkupDeclarations`.
const isSvg = require('is-svg');
function build_attack1(n) {
var ret = '<!'
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {
ret += 'DOCTYPE'
}
return ret+"";
}
for(var i = 1; i <= 50000; i++) {
if (i % 10000 == 0) {
var time = Date.now();
var attack_str = build_attack1(i);
isSvg(attack_str);
var time_cost = Date.now() - time;
console.log("attack_str.length: " + attack_str.length + ": " + time_cost+" ms")
}
}
//2) 2nd ReDoS caused by ? the first sub-regex \s* in `entityRegex`.
function build_attack2(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_attack2(i);
isSvg(attack_str);
var time_cost = Date.now() - time;
console.log("attack_str.length: " + attack_str.length + ": " + time_cost+" ms")
}
}
//3rd ReDoS caused by the sub-regex \s+\S*\s* in `entityRegex`.
function build_attack3(n) {
var ret = '<!Entity'
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_attack3(i);
isSvg(attack_str);
var time_cost = Date.now() - time;
console.log("attack_str.length: " + attack_str.length + ": " + time_cost+" ms")
}
}
//4th ReDoS caused by the sub-regex \S*\s*(?:"|')[^"]+ in `entityRegex`.
function build_attack4(n) {
var ret = '<!Entity '
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_attack4(i);
isSvg(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:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade is-svg to version 4.3.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: loader-utils
- Introduced through: babel-loader@6.4.1, css-loader@0.19.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-loader@6.4.1 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to babel-loader@7.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@0.26.2.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › extract-text-webpack-plugin@0.8.2 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to extract-text-webpack-plugin@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › postcss-loader@0.6.0 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to postcss-loader@1.3.2.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › style-loader@0.12.4 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to style-loader@0.13.2.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to webpack@3.0.0.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the resourcePath variable in interpolateName.js.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade loader-utils to version 1.4.2, 2.0.4, 3.2.1 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: loader-utils
- Introduced through: babel-loader@6.4.1, css-loader@0.19.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-loader@6.4.1 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to babel-loader@7.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@0.26.2.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › extract-text-webpack-plugin@0.8.2 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to extract-text-webpack-plugin@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › postcss-loader@0.6.0 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to postcss-loader@1.3.2.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › style-loader@0.12.4 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to style-loader@0.13.2.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › loader-utils@0.2.17Remediation: Upgrade to webpack@3.0.0.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) in interpolateName function via the URL variable.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade loader-utils to version 1.4.2, 2.0.4, 3.2.1 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0, jscs@2.11.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to html-webpack-plugin@2.10.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to babel-eslint@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › inquirer@0.11.4 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › cheerio@0.19.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › xmlbuilder@3.1.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › jscs-jsdoc@1.3.2 › jsdoctypeparser@1.2.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the toNumber, trim and trimEnd functions.
POC
var lo = require('lodash');
function build_blank (n) {
var ret = "1"
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {
ret += " "
}
return ret + "1";
}
var s = build_blank(50000)
var time0 = Date.now();
lo.trim(s)
var time_cost0 = Date.now() - time0;
console.log("time_cost0: " + time_cost0)
var time1 = Date.now();
lo.toNumber(s)
var time_cost1 = Date.now() - time1;
console.log("time_cost1: " + time_cost1)
var time2 = Date.now();
lo.trimEnd(s)
var time_cost2 = Date.now() - time2;
console.log("time_cost2: " + time_cost2)
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.21 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: marked
- Introduced through: angular-marked@1.2.2
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › angular-marked@1.2.2 › marked@0.3.19
Overview
marked is a low-level compiler for parsing markdown without caching or blocking for long periods of time.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). The inline.text regex may take quadratic time to scan for potential email addresses starting at every point.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade marked to version 0.6.2 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: marked
- Introduced through: angular-marked@1.2.2
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › angular-marked@1.2.2 › marked@0.3.19
Overview
marked is a low-level compiler for parsing markdown without caching or blocking for long periods of time.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) when passing unsanitized user input to inline.reflinkSearch, if it is not being parsed by a time-limited worker thread.
PoC
import * as marked from 'marked';
console.log(marked.parse(`[x]: x
\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](\\[\\](`));
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade marked to version 4.0.10 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: marked
- Introduced through: angular-marked@1.2.2
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › angular-marked@1.2.2 › marked@0.3.19
Overview
marked is a low-level compiler for parsing markdown without caching or blocking for long periods of time.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) when unsanitized user input is passed to block.def.
PoC
import * as marked from "marked";
marked.parse(`[x]:${' '.repeat(1500)}x ${' '.repeat(1500)} x`);
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade marked to version 4.0.10 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: marked
- Introduced through: angular-marked@1.2.2
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › angular-marked@1.2.2 › marked@0.3.19
Overview
marked is a low-level compiler for parsing markdown without caching or blocking for long periods of time.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). A Denial of Service condition could be triggered through exploitation of the heading regex.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade marked to version 0.4.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: micromatch
- Introduced through: babel-cli@6.26.0 and webpack@1.15.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › chokidar@1.7.0 › anymatch@1.3.2 › micromatch@2.3.11
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › watchpack@0.2.9 › chokidar@1.7.0 › anymatch@1.3.2 › micromatch@2.3.11Remediation: Upgrade to webpack@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › watchpack@0.2.9 › chokidar@1.7.0 › readdirp@2.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity due to the use of unsafe pattern configurations that allow greedy matching through the micromatch.braces() function. An attacker can cause the application to hang or slow down by passing a malicious payload that triggers extensive backtracking in regular expression processing.
Remediation
Upgrade micromatch to version 4.0.8 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: minimatch
- Introduced through: babel-eslint@4.1.8, babel-jscs@2.0.5 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › minimatch@2.0.10Remediation: Upgrade to babel-eslint@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › minimatch@2.0.10
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › minimatch@2.0.10
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › mocha@2.5.3 › glob@3.2.11 › minimatch@0.3.0Remediation: Upgrade to mocha@3.0.0.
Overview
minimatch is a minimal matching utility.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the braceExpand function in minimatch.js.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade minimatch to version 3.0.5 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: postcss
- Introduced through: autoprefixer@6.7.7, css-loader@0.19.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › autoprefixer@6.7.7 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to autoprefixer@10.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › postcss-loader@0.6.0 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to postcss-loader@4.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › postcss-modules-extract-imports@1.0.0-beta2 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › postcss-modules-local-by-default@1.0.0-beta1 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › postcss-modules-scope@1.0.0-beta2 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › autoprefixer@6.7.7 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-calc@5.3.1 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-colormin@2.2.2 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-convert-values@2.6.1 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-discard-comments@2.0.4 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-discard-duplicates@2.1.0 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-discard-empty@2.1.0 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-discard-overridden@0.1.1 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-discard-unused@2.2.3 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-filter-plugins@2.0.3 › postcss@5.2.18
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-merge-idents@2.1.7 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-merge-longhand@2.0.2 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-merge-rules@2.1.2 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-minify-font-values@1.0.5 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-minify-gradients@1.0.5 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-minify-params@1.2.2 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-minify-selectors@2.1.1 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-normalize-charset@1.1.1 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-normalize-url@3.0.8 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-ordered-values@2.2.3 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-reduce-idents@2.4.0 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-reduce-initial@1.0.1 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-reduce-transforms@1.0.4 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-svgo@2.1.6 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-unique-selectors@2.0.2 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-zindex@2.2.0 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
Overview
postcss is a PostCSS is a tool for transforming styles with JS plugins.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Input Validation when parsing external Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) with linters using PostCSS. An attacker can cause discrepancies by injecting malicious CSS rules, such as @font-face{ font:(\r/*);}.
This vulnerability is because of an insecure regular expression usage in the RE_BAD_BRACKET variable.
Remediation
Upgrade postcss to version 8.4.31 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: postcss
- Introduced through: autoprefixer@6.7.7, css-loader@0.19.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › autoprefixer@6.7.7 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to autoprefixer@9.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › postcss-loader@0.6.0 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to postcss-loader@3.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › postcss-modules-extract-imports@1.0.0-beta2 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › postcss-modules-local-by-default@1.0.0-beta1 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › postcss-modules-scope@1.0.0-beta2 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@2.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › autoprefixer@6.7.7 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-calc@5.3.1 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-colormin@2.2.2 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-convert-values@2.6.1 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-discard-comments@2.0.4 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-discard-duplicates@2.1.0 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-discard-empty@2.1.0 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-discard-overridden@0.1.1 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-discard-unused@2.2.3 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-filter-plugins@2.0.3 › postcss@5.2.18
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-merge-idents@2.1.7 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-merge-longhand@2.0.2 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-merge-rules@2.1.2 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-minify-font-values@1.0.5 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-minify-gradients@1.0.5 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-minify-params@1.2.2 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-minify-selectors@2.1.1 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-normalize-charset@1.1.1 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-normalize-url@3.0.8 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-ordered-values@2.2.3 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-reduce-idents@2.4.0 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-reduce-initial@1.0.1 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-reduce-transforms@1.0.4 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-svgo@2.1.6 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-unique-selectors@2.0.2 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › css-loader@0.19.0 › cssnano@3.10.0 › postcss-zindex@2.2.0 › postcss@5.2.18Remediation: Upgrade to css-loader@1.0.0.
Overview
postcss is a PostCSS is a tool for transforming styles with JS plugins.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via getAnnotationURL() and loadAnnotation() in lib/previous-map.js. The vulnerable regexes are caused mainly by the sub-pattern \/\*\s*# sourceMappingURL=(.*).
PoC
var postcss = require("postcss")
function build_attack(n) {
var ret = "a{}"
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {
ret += "/*# sourceMappingURL="
}
return ret + "!";
}
// postcss.parse('a{}/*# sourceMappingURL=a.css.map */')
for(var i = 1; i <= 500000; i++) {
if (i % 1000 == 0) {
var time = Date.now();
var attack_str = build_attack(i)
try{
postcss.parse(attack_str)
var time_cost = Date.now() - time;
console.log("attack_str.length: " + attack_str.length + ": " + time_cost+" ms");
}
catch(e){
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:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade postcss to version 8.2.13, 7.0.36 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: uglify-js
- Introduced through: html-loader@0.4.5, html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-loader@0.4.5 › html-minifier@3.5.21 › uglify-js@3.4.10Remediation: Upgrade to html-loader@1.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0 › html-minifier@1.5.0 › uglify-js@2.6.4Remediation: Upgrade to html-webpack-plugin@4.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › uglify-js@2.8.29
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › uglify-js@2.7.5Remediation: Upgrade to webpack@3.0.0.
Overview
uglify-js is a JavaScript parser, minifier, compressor and beautifier toolkit.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the string_template and the decode_template functions.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade uglify-js to version 3.14.3 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: lodash
- Introduced through: html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0, jscs@2.11.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to html-webpack-plugin@2.10.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to babel-eslint@5.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3 › inquirer@0.11.4 › lodash@3.10.1Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@2.1.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › cheerio@0.19.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › xmlbuilder@3.1.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-eslint@4.1.8 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › jscs-jsdoc@1.3.2 › jsdoctypeparser@1.2.0 › lodash@3.10.1
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › babel-jscs@2.0.5 › babel-core@5.8.38 › babel-plugin-proto-to-assign@1.0.4 › lodash@3.10.1
Overview
lodash is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). It parses dates using regex strings, which may cause a slowdown of 2 seconds per 50k characters.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade lodash to version 4.17.11 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: angular
- Introduced through: angular@1.8.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › angular@1.8.3
Overview
angular is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) due to insecure page caching in the Internet Explorer browser, which allows interpolation of <textarea> elements.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for angular.
References
medium severity
- Module: jschardet
- Introduced through: inliner@1.13.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › inliner@1.13.1 › jschardet@1.6.0
LGPL-2.1 license
low severity
- Vulnerable module: braces
- Introduced through: babel-cli@6.26.0 and webpack@1.15.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › babel-cli@6.26.0 › chokidar@1.7.0 › anymatch@1.3.2 › micromatch@2.3.11 › braces@1.8.5
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › watchpack@0.2.9 › chokidar@1.7.0 › anymatch@1.3.2 › micromatch@2.3.11 › braces@1.8.5Remediation: Upgrade to webpack@2.2.0.
Overview
braces is a Bash-like brace expansion, implemented in JavaScript.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). It used a regular expression (^\{(,+(?:(\{,+\})*),*|,*(?:(\{,+\})*),+)\}) in order to detects empty braces. This can cause an impact of about 10 seconds matching time for data 50K characters long.
Disclosure Timeline
- Feb 15th, 2018 - Initial Disclosure to package owner
- Feb 16th, 2018 - Initial Response from package owner
- Feb 18th, 2018 - Fix issued
- Feb 19th, 2018 - Vulnerability published
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade braces to version 2.3.1 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: clean-css
- Introduced through: html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-webpack-plugin@1.7.0 › html-minifier@1.5.0 › clean-css@3.4.28Remediation: Upgrade to html-webpack-plugin@2.23.0.
Overview
clean-css is a fast and efficient CSS optimizer for Node.js platform and any modern browser.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). attacks. This can cause an impact of about 10 seconds matching time for data 70k characters long.
Disclosure Timeline
- Feb 15th, 2018 - Initial Disclosure to package owner
- Feb 20th, 2018 - Initial Response from package owner
- Mar 6th, 2018 - Fix issued
- Mar 7th, 2018 - Vulnerability published
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade clean-css to version 4.1.11 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: debug
- Introduced through: mocha@2.5.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › mocha@2.5.3 › debug@2.2.0Remediation: Upgrade to mocha@4.0.0.
Overview
debug is a small debugging utility.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) in the function useColors via manipulation of the str argument.
The vulnerability can cause a very low impact of about 2 seconds of matching time for data 50k characters long.
Note: CVE-2017-20165 is a duplicate of this vulnerability.
PoC
Use the following regex in the %o formatter.
/\s*\n\s*/
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade debug to version 2.6.9, 3.1.0, 3.2.7, 4.3.1 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: eslint
- Introduced through: eslint@1.10.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › eslint@1.10.3Remediation: Upgrade to eslint@4.18.2.
Overview
eslint is a pluggable linting utility for JavaScript and JSX
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). This can cause an impact of about 10 seconds matching time for data 100k characters long.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade eslint to version 4.18.2 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: minimist
- Introduced through: webpack@1.15.0, html-inline@1.2.0 and others
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › webpack@1.15.0 › optimist@0.6.1 › minimist@0.0.10
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-inline@1.2.0 › trumpet@1.7.2 › html-select@2.3.24 › minimist@0.0.10
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › html-inline@1.2.0 › trumpet@1.7.2 › html-tokenize@1.2.5 › minimist@0.0.10
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › mocha@2.5.3 › mkdirp@0.5.1 › minimist@0.0.8Remediation: Upgrade to mocha@6.2.3.
Overview
minimist is a parse argument options module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution due to a missing handler to Function.prototype.
Notes:
This vulnerability is a bypass to CVE-2020-7598
The reason for the different CVSS between CVE-2021-44906 to CVE-2020-7598, is that CVE-2020-7598 can pollute objects, while CVE-2021-44906 can pollute only function.
PoC by Snyk
require('minimist')('--_.constructor.constructor.prototype.foo bar'.split(' '));
console.log((function(){}).foo); // bar
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade minimist to version 0.2.4, 1.2.6 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: ms
- Introduced through: mocha@2.5.3
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › mocha@2.5.3 › debug@2.2.0 › ms@0.7.1Remediation: Upgrade to mocha@3.5.0.
Overview
ms is a tiny millisecond conversion utility.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) due to an incomplete fix for previously reported vulnerability npm:ms:20151024. The fix limited the length of accepted input string to 10,000 characters, and turned to be insufficient making it possible to block the event loop for 0.3 seconds (on a typical laptop) with a specially crafted string passed to ms() function.
Proof of concept
ms = require('ms');
ms('1'.repeat(9998) + 'Q') // Takes about ~0.3s
Note: Snyk's patch for this vulnerability limits input length to 100 characters. This new limit was deemed to be a breaking change by the author. Based on user feedback, we believe the risk of breakage is very low, while the value to your security is much greater, and therefore opted to still capture this change in a patch for earlier versions as well. Whenever patching security issues, we always suggest to run tests on your code to validate that nothing has been broken.
For more information on Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) attacks, go to our blog.
Disclosure Timeline
- Feb 9th, 2017 - Reported the issue to package owner.
- Feb 11th, 2017 - Issue acknowledged by package owner.
- April 12th, 2017 - Fix PR opened by Snyk Security Team.
- May 15th, 2017 - Vulnerability published.
- May 16th, 2017 - Issue fixed and version
2.0.0released. - May 21th, 2017 - Patches released for versions
>=0.7.1, <=1.0.0.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade ms to version 2.0.0 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: sqlite3@3.1.13
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar@2.2.2Remediation: Upgrade to sqlite3@4.0.0.
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › sqlite3@3.1.13 › node-pre-gyp@0.6.39 › tar-pack@3.4.1 › tar@2.2.2
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). When stripping the trailing slash from files arguments, the f.replace(/\/+$/, '') performance of this function can exponentially degrade when f contains many / characters resulting in ReDoS.
This vulnerability is not likely to be exploitable as it requires that the untrusted input is being passed into the tar.extract() or tar.list() array of entries to parse/extract, which would be unusual.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 6.1.4, 5.0.8, 4.4.16 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: utile
- Introduced through: jscs@2.11.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: Thinky-Docset@thenoim/thinky-docset#d86366870dfd9fd7bc408952f9d5b8d4912176e7 › jscs@2.11.0 › prompt@0.2.14 › utile@0.2.1
Overview
utile is a drop-in replacement for util with some additional advantageous functions.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Uninitialized Memory Exposure. A malicious user could extract sensitive data from uninitialized memory or to cause a DoS by passing in a large number, in setups where typed user input can be passed.
Note Uninitialized Memory Exposure impacts only Node.js 6.x or lower, Denial of Service impacts any Node.js version.
Details
The Buffer class on Node.js is a mutable array of binary data, and can be initialized with a string, array or number.
const buf1 = new Buffer([1,2,3]);
// creates a buffer containing [01, 02, 03]
const buf2 = new Buffer('test');
// creates a buffer containing ASCII bytes [74, 65, 73, 74]
const buf3 = new Buffer(10);
// creates a buffer of length 10
The first two variants simply create a binary representation of the value it received. The last one, however, pre-allocates a buffer of the specified size, making it a useful buffer, especially when reading data from a stream.
When using the number constructor of Buffer, it will allocate the memory, but will not fill it with zeros. Instead, the allocated buffer will hold whatever was in memory at the time. If the buffer is not zeroed by using buf.fill(0), it may leak sensitive information like keys, source code, and system info.
Remediation
There is no fix version for utile.