GHSA-2697-96mv-3gfm CVE-2024-50701
TeamPass does not properly check whether a folder is in a user's allowed folders list
Medium
Packagist
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.34%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 27.88% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
3.1.3.1- Upgrade nilsteampassnet/teampass to this version or later
Description
TeamPass before 3.1.3.1, when retrieving information about access rights for a folder, does not properly check whether a folder is in a user's allowed folders list that has been defined by an admin.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| nilsteampassnet/teampass | < 3.1.3.1 |
3.1.3.1 |
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.
nilsteampassnet/teampass Packagist → 3.1.3.1
- composer
composer require nilsteampassnet/teampass:^3.1.3.1
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 4.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-266: Incorrect Privilege Assignment
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
CWE-285: Improper Authorization
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-9wmc-988h-2mv2 TeamPass privileges issue | High | Also affects nilsteampassnet/teampass |
| GHSA-7rm3-4w6j-8xx4 TeamPass mail_me operation authorization issue | Medium | Also affects nilsteampassnet/teampass |
| GHSA-524r-w8fx-hqg3 TeamPass Cross-site Scripting vulnerability | Medium | Also affects nilsteampassnet/teampass |
| GHSA-2rhg-hqq9-8xjh TeamPass information exposure vulnerability | High | Also affects nilsteampassnet/teampass |
| GHSA-2cv5-qvq3-6276 TeamPass vulnerable to Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output | Medium | Also affects nilsteampassnet/teampass |
| GHSA-97hm-2mfr-2p97 TeamPass Code Injection vulnerability | High | Also affects nilsteampassnet/teampass |
| GHSA-pwrw-g29q-3mp8 TeamPass Cross-site Scripting vulnerability | Medium | Also affects nilsteampassnet/teampass |
| GHSA-qmw8-x364-xxxm Teampass Cross-site Scripting vulnerability | Medium | Also affects nilsteampassnet/teampass |
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