DRUPAL-CORE-2024-004 BIT-drupal-2024-55634 CVE-2024-55634 GHSA-7cwc-fjqm-8vh8
Drupal core Access bypass
High
Packagist
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.41%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 35.74% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-178 Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity
- CWE-289 Authentication Bypass by Alternate Name
- Fix
- Available
- 3 packages have a fixed version
Description
Drupal's uniqueness checking for certain user fields is inconsistent depending on the database engine and its collation.
As a result, a user may be able to register with the same email address as another user.
This may lead to data integrity issues.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| drupal/core | >= 8.0.0, < 10.2.11>= 10.3.0, < 10.3.9>= 11.0.0, < 11.0.8 |
10.2.1110.3.911.0.8 |
| drupal/core | >= 8.0.0, < 10.2.11 |
10.2.11 |
| drupal/core | >= 10.3.0, < 10.3.9 |
10.3.9 |
| drupal/core | >= 11.0.0, < 11.0.8 |
11.0.8 |
| drupal/core-recommended | >= 8.0.0, < 10.2.11 |
10.2.11 |
| drupal/core-recommended | >= 10.3.0, < 10.3.9 |
10.3.9 |
| drupal/core-recommended | >= 11.0.0, < 11.0.8 |
11.0.8 |
| drupal/drupal | >= 8.0.0, < 10.2.11 |
10.2.11 |
| drupal/drupal | >= 10.3.0, < 10.3.9 |
10.3.9 |
| drupal/drupal | >= 11.0.0, < 11.0.8 |
11.0.8 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
drupal/core Packagist → 11.0.8
- composer
composer require drupal/core:^11.0.8
drupal/core-recommended Packagist → 10.2.11
- composer
composer require drupal/core-recommended:^10.2.11
drupal/drupal Packagist → 10.2.11
- composer
composer require drupal/drupal:^10.2.11
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 8.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-178: Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity
The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
CWE-289: Authentication Bypass by Alternate Name
The product performs authentication based on the name of a resource being accessed, or the name of the actor performing the access, but it does not properly check all possible names for that resource or actor.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| DRUPAL-CORE-2026-004 Drupal Core has a SQL Injection issue | Critical Known exploited | Also affects drupal/core |
| CVE-2020-28949 Multiple vulnerabilities through filename manipulation in Archive_Tar | High Known exploited | Also affects drupal/core |
| CVE-2020-13671 Drupal core Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type | High Known exploited | Also affects drupal/core |
| CVE-2019-6340 Drupal Core Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | High Known exploited | Also affects drupal/core |
| CVE-2018-7602 Drupal Core Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | Critical Known exploited | Also affects drupal/core |
| CVE-2018-7600 Drupal Core Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | Critical Known exploited | Also affects drupal/core |
| DRUPAL-CORE-2026-016 The Navigation module doesn't sufficiently sanitize certain attributes, which can lead to a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability. | Not rated yet | Also affects drupal/core |
| DRUPAL-CORE-2026-015 The Drupal core Link module provides a field type that can be used for internal and external URLs. | Not rated yet | Also affects drupal/core |
Credits: Wayne Eaker
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor