GHSA-33c7-2mpw-hg34 CVE-2020-7694 PYSEC-2020-150 SNYK-PYTHON-UVICORN-575560
Log injection in uvicorn
High
PyPI
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.36%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 71.66% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-116 Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
0.11.7- Upgrade uvicorn to this version or later
Description
This affects all versions of package uvicorn. The request logger provided by the package is vulnerable to ASNI escape sequence injection. Whenever any HTTP request is received, the default behaviour of uvicorn is to log its details to either the console or a log file. When attackers request crafted URLs with percent-encoded escape sequences, the logging component will log the URL after it's been processed with urllib.parse.unquote, therefore converting any percent-encoded characters into their single-character equivalent, which can have special meaning in terminal emulators. By requesting URLs with crafted paths, attackers can: * Pollute uvicorn's access logs, therefore jeopardising the integrity of such files. * Use ANSI sequence codes to attempt to interact with the terminal emulator that's displaying the logs (either in real time or from a file).
Affected versions
PyPI
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.
uvicorn PyPI → 0.11.7
- pip
pip install --upgrade "uvicorn>=0.11.7"- poetry
poetry add "uvicorn>=0.11.7"- uv
uv add "uvicorn>=0.11.7"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/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)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-116: Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.
How to prevent it
- 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 the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error. Alternately, use built-in functions, but consider using wrappers in case those functions are discovered to have a vulnerability.
- Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. For example, stored procedures can enforce database query structure and reduce the likelihood of SQL injection.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
- Architecture and Design: In some cases, input validation may be an important strategy when output encoding is not a complete solution. For example, you may be providing the same output that will be processed by multiple consumers that use different encodings or representations. In other cases, you may be required to allow user-supplied input to contain control information, such as limited HTML tags that support formatting in a wiki or bulletin board. When this type of requirement must be met, use an extremely strict allowlist to limit which control sequences can be used. Verify that the resulting syntactic structure is what you expect. Use your normal encoding methods for the remainder of the input.
- Architecture and Design: Use input validation as a defense-in-depth measure to reduce the likelihood of output encoding errors (see CWE-20).
- Requirements: Fully specify which encodings are required by components that will be communicating with each other.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
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-f97h-2pfx-f59f HTTP response splitting in uvicorn | High | Also affects uvicorn |
| GHSA-qxg6-89mg-rqv8 Vitest: Code injection via unauthenticated manual mock registration | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
| GHSA-333x-w4r6-6crp fast-uri vulnerable to scheme injection via an unescaped first-segment colon in suffix references | Low | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
| GHSA-xw65-4hp5-5hc7 Handlebars: JavaScript Injection via Unsafe Inline Embedding of Precompiled Templates | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
| GHSA-wx4j-mvgx-mqwp Satori-generated SVG has improper escaping | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
| GHSA-7c7c-373r-gfjj Klever-Go: Elasticsearch bulk / painless injection via on-chain account name -> explorer/indexer data forgery | High | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
| EEF-CVE-2026-82756 ash_authentication_oauth2_server interpolates a tenant-derived value into the WWW-Authenticate challenge without escaping, allowing header parameter injection | Not rated yet | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
| GHSA-qw65-cvwx-89v3 fast-uri vulnerable to authority injection via an unvalidated port in serialize | High | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
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