GHSA-3fjj-p79j-c9hh CVE-2022-41919
Fastify: Incorrect Content-Type parsing can lead to CSRF attack
- Severity
- 4.2 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.41%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 35.16% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Fix
4.10.2- Upgrade fastify to this version or later
Description
Impact
The attacker can use the incorrect Content-Type to bypass the Pre-Flight checking of fetch. fetch() requests with Content-Type’s essence as "application/x-www-form-urlencoded", "multipart/form-data", or "text/plain", could potentially be used to invoke routes that only accepts application/json content type, thus bypassing any CORS protection, and therefore they could lead to a Cross-Site Request Forgery attack.
Patches
For 4.x users, please update to at least 4.10.2
For 3.x users, please update to at least 3.29.4
Workarounds
Implement Cross-Site Request Forgery protection using @fastify/csrf.
References
Check out the HackerOne report: https://hackerone.com/reports/1763832.
For more information
Affected versions
npm
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.
fastify npm → 4.10.2
- npm
npm install fastify@4.10.2- yarn
yarn add fastify@4.10.2- pnpm
pnpm add fastify@4.10.2
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 4.2
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
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 [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
- Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
- Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
- Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
- Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
- Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
- Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-389g-gv7q-r4x8 fastify is vulnerable to header validation bypass via case-sensitive propertyNames | Low | Also affects fastify |
| GHSA-4mh8-r7rc-xpvc fastify vulnerable to Denial of Service via unhandled exception on HTTP/2 trailer responses | Medium | Also affects fastify |
| GHSA-9q9j-q6p8-xq58 fastify vulnerable to header validation bypass via incomplete schema case normalization | High | Also affects fastify |
| GHSA-667r-xxjv-c9mm fastify vulnerable to request body replacement via an async validation result collision | High | Also affects fastify |
| GHSA-hwr6-493r-vm6h fastify vulnerable to request validation bypass via skipped boolean false schemas | High | Also affects fastify |
| GHSA-p68q-wchp-6fh7 fastify vulnerable to authentication bypass via malformed URLs reaching encapsulated not-found handlers | High | Also affects fastify |
| GHSA-w2qp-rph6-63g4 fastify vulnerable to schema validation bypass via root primitive coercion mismatch | Medium | Also affects fastify |
| GHSA-3m5p-2c4r-xxw2 fastify vulnerable to X-Forwarded-* spoofing under trustProxy hop-count | Medium | Also affects fastify |
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