GHSA-3v7m-2jrh-vc93 CVE-2022-4864
Froxlor vulnerable to Argument Injection
Medium
Packagist
- Severity
- 5.4 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.51%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 43.64% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-74 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')
- CWE-88 Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
- Fix
2.0.0-beta1- Upgrade froxlor/froxlor to this version or later
Description
Argument Injection in GitHub repository froxlor/froxlor prior to 2.0.0-beta1.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| froxlor/froxlor | >= 2.0.0-beta0, < 2.0.0-beta1 |
2.0.0-beta1 |
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.
froxlor/froxlor Packagist → 2.0.0-beta1
- composer
composer require froxlor/froxlor:^2.0.0-beta1
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-74: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a command, data structure, or record using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify how it is parsed or interpreted when it is sent to a downstream component.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Programming languages and supporting technologies might be chosen which are not subject to these issues.
- Implementation: Utilize an appropriate mix of allowlist and denylist parsing to filter control-plane syntax from all input.
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
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-7788-ghfq-c6mh Froxlor: Credential and 2FA secret disclosure via Froxlor API endpoints | Critical | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-xpr4-8vp6-c87j Froxlor has CSRF Vulnerability in AJAX Endpoint — Missing Cross-Site Request Forgery Protection | Medium | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-5rw4-4665-cvwf Froxlor DomainZones.add allows DNS zone-file RR injection via record/type fields | Medium | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-w27m-rmmf-g5w4 Froxlor: Second-Order SQL Injection via `Admins.add` `ipaddress` Parameter Allows Full Database Exfiltration | High | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-43gm-9rr3-cx7g Froxlor: Stored XSS in DNS TXT Record Content Allows Customer-to-Admin Account Takeover | High | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-q4rm-m6xh-5pv7 Froxlor customer can create MySQL databases on disallowed servers via Mysqls.add API | Medium | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-mr9h-45p9-fg8h Froxlor: Authenticated customers can read other customers' allowed sender aliases | Medium | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-f9rx-7wf7-jr36 Froxlor's API Authentication bypasses 2FA Authentication | High | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
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