Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

GHSA-3872-f48p-pxqj BIT-weblate-2022-23915 CVE-2022-23915 CVE-2022-24727 GHSA-h2g5-2rhx-ffgj PYSEC-2022-162 PYSEC-2022-31 SNYK-PYTHON-WEBLATE-2414088

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') in Weblate

High PyPI
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
3.10%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 87.75% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
CWE-88 Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
Fix
4.11.1
Upgrade weblate to this version or later

Description

Impact

Weblate didn't correctly sanitize some arguments passed to Git and Mercurial, which allowed changing their behavior in an unintended way.

Patches

The issues were fixed in the 4.11.1 release. The following commits are addressing it:

  • 35d59f1f040541c358cece0a8d4a63183ca919b8
  • d83672a3e7415da1490334e2c9431e5da1966842

Workarounds

Instances in which untrusted users cannot create new components are not affected.

References

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
weblate
< 4.11.1
4.11.1
weblate
< 4.11.1
4.11.1

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.

weblate PyPI → 4.11.1

pip
pip install --upgrade "weblate>=4.11.1"
poetry
poetry add "weblate>=4.11.1"
uv
uv add "weblate>=4.11.1"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
Low
Integrity (subsequent systems)
Low
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 8.8

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
  • Implementation: If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
  • 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.
  • Operation: Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
  • System Configuration: Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.

CWE-88: Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')

The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command. For example, in PHP, escapeshellarg() can be used to escape a single argument to system(), or exec() can be called with an array of arguments. In C, code can often be refactored from using system() - which accepts a single string - to using exec(), which requires separate function arguments for each parameter.
  • Architecture and Design: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Perform input validation at well-defined interfaces.
  • 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: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • 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.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • 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.

References

Advisories

Packages

Other links

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-2q2q-jr9g-v9rf
Weblate has IDOR in GroupViewSet that allows authenticated project manager to gain unauthorized read access to any private project
High Also affects weblate
GHSA-2p9g-x3cv-5hh4
Private Weblate projects vulnerable to observable object existence disclosure via globally scoped object lookups
Medium Also affects weblate
GHSA-vmfc-9982-2m45
Weblate SSRF: outbound URL guard misses some private ranges
Medium Also affects weblate
GHSA-6wxc-8mgq-w26m
Weblate: Stored HTML injection in editor search preview
Medium Also affects weblate
GHSA-5cmv-3rc4-7279
Weblate vulnerable to XSS via crafted Markdown
Medium Also affects weblate
GHSA-gcg5-86jr-f7jg
Weblate Vulnerable to Private Translation Enumeration via Screenshot API
Medium Also affects weblate
GHSA-cwcx-382v-8m9g
Weblate Vulnerable to Authenticated SSRF via Project Backup Import bypassing validate_repo_url
High Also affects weblate
GHSA-6j8j-4qp3-36p2
Weblate Doesn't Invalidate API Token on Password Change
Medium Also affects weblate
Is this in your code?

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