GHSA-2563-fp9c-mgm8 BIT-moodle-2021-36394 CVE-2021-36394
Moodle Session Fixation vulnerability
Critical
Packagist
- Severity
- 9.8 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 7.03%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 94.19% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
3.11.1- Upgrade moodle/moodle to this version or later
Description
In Moodle, a remote code execution risk was identified in the Shibboleth authentication plugin.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| moodle/moodle | >= 3.11.0-beta, < 3.11.1 |
3.11.1 |
| moodle/moodle | >= 3.10.0-beta, < 3.10.5 |
3.10.5 |
| moodle/moodle | < 3.9.8 |
3.9.8 |
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.
moodle/moodle Packagist → 3.11.1
- composer
composer require moodle/moodle:^3.11.1
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-384: Session Fixation
Authenticating a user, or otherwise establishing a new user session, without invalidating any existing session identifier gives an attacker the opportunity to steal authenticated sessions.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Invalidate any existing session identifiers prior to authorizing a new user session.
- Architecture and Design: For platforms such as ASP that do not generate new values for sessionid cookies, utilize a secondary cookie. In this approach, set a secondary cookie on the user's browser to a random value and set a session variable to the same value. If the session variable and the cookie value ever don't match, invalidate the session, and force the user to log on again.
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- 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. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-cg8j-5cr2-568q Moodle TeX formula editor is vulnerable to DoS through lack of execution time limits | Medium | Also affects moodle/moodle |
| GHSA-ggxq-2mg9-8966 Moodle has a Remote Code Execution risk via file restore | High | Also affects moodle/moodle |
| GHSA-8jrv-wx83-w3xj Moodle Inserts Sensitive Information Into Sent Data | Medium | Also affects moodle/moodle |
| GHSA-hcm6-q6pc-xfhm Moodle has an authorization logic flaw | Critical | Also affects moodle/moodle |
| GHSA-vwhw-vp9v-q9c9 Moodle vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting | Medium | Also affects moodle/moodle |
| GHSA-5cx4-w4fh-fr57 Moodle Affected by Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts | High | Also affects moodle/moodle |
| GHSA-qv78-6gpp-hm68 Moodle Open Redirect vulnerability | Medium | Also affects moodle/moodle |
| GHSA-qfh6-h7j6-fvjv Moodle formula injection vulnerability | High | Also affects moodle/moodle |
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