GHSA-2x8x-jmrp-phxw CVE-2022-45442
Sinatra vulnerable to Reflected File Download attack
High
RubyGems
- Severity
- 8.8 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.69%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 52.85% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-494 Download of Code Without Integrity Check
- Fix
3.0.4- Upgrade sinatra to this version or later
Description
Description
An issue was discovered in Sinatra 2.0 before 2.2.3 and 3.0 before 3.0.4. An application is vulnerable to a reflected file download (RFD) attack that sets the Content-Disposition header of a response when the filename is derived from user-supplied input.
References
Affected versions
RubyGems
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.
sinatra RubyGems → 3.0.4
- bundler
bundle update sinatra # Gemfile: gem "sinatra", ">= 3.0.4"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-494: Download of Code Without Integrity Check
The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Perform proper forward and reverse DNS lookups to detect DNS spoofing.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Encrypt the code with a reliable encryption scheme before transmitting. This will only be a partial solution, since it will not detect DNS spoofing and it will not prevent your code from being modified on the hosting site.
- 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 [REF-1482]. Speficially, it may be helpful to use tools or frameworks to perform integrity checking on the transmitted code. When providing the code that is to be downloaded, such as for automatic updates of the software, then use cryptographic signatures for the code and modify the download clients to verify the signatures. Ensure that the implementation does not contain CWE-295, CWE-320, CWE-347, and related weaknesses. Use code signing technologies such as Authenticode. See references [REF-454] [REF-455] [REF-456].
- 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.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/sinatra/sinatra/security/advisories/GHSA-2x8x-jmrp-phxw
- github.com/sinatra/sinatra/commit/ea8fc9495a350f7551b39e3025bfcd06f49f363b
- github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/sinatra/CVE-2022-45442.yml
- lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2023/01/msg00005.html
- lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2024/09/msg00020.html
- blackhat.com/docs/eu-14/materials/eu-14-Hafif-Reflected-File-Download-A-New-Web-A…
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-mr3q-g2mv-mr4q Sinatra is vulnerable to ReDoS through ETag header value generation | High | Also affects sinatra |
| GHSA-hxx2-7vcw-mqr3 Sinatra vulnerable to Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision | Medium | Also affects sinatra |
| GHSA-qp49-3pvw-x4m5 sinatra does not validate expanded path matches | High | Also affects sinatra |
| GHSA-mq35-wqvf-r23c Sinatra Cross-site Scripting vulnerability | Medium | Also affects sinatra |
| GHSA-h29f-7f56-j8wh Sinatra Path Traversal vulnerability | Medium | Also affects sinatra |
| GHSA-pq7j-f95f-qfcv Claude Code: Plugin Hash Pin Bypass Allows Bypass of Hash Pinning | High | Same weakness, CWE-494 |
| GHSA-662p-52hx-cmh2 Nginx UI: Self-upgrade runs an unsigned binary verified only by a same-origin digest → RCE via a compromised mirror or MITM | High | Same weakness, CWE-494 |
| GHSA-x9r9-c232-4q39 Hugging Face Transformers downloads custom generation code before trust consent | High | Same weakness, CWE-494 |
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