GHSA-455w-c45v-86rg CVE-2022-39288
fastify vulnerable to denial of service via malicious Content-Type
High
npm
- Severity
- 7.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 59.24%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.12% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-754 Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions
- Fix
4.8.1- Upgrade fastify to this version or later
Description
Impact
An attacker can send an invalid Content-Type header that can cause the application to crash, leading to a possible Denial of Service attack. Only the v4.x line is affected.
(This was updated: upon a close inspection, v3.x is not affected after all).
Patches
Yes, update to > v4.8.0.
Workarounds
You can reject the malicious content types before the body parser enters in action.
const badNames = Object.getOwnPropertyNames({}.__proto__)
fastify.addHook('onRequest', async (req, reply) => {
for (const badName of badNames) {
if (req.headers['content-type'].indexOf(badName) > -1) {
reply.code(415)
throw new Error('Content type not supported')
}
}
})
References
See the HackerOne report #1715536
For more information
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| fastify | >= 4.0.0, < 4.8.1 |
4.8.1 |
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.
fastify npm → 4.8.1
- npm
npm install fastify@4.8.1- yarn
yarn add fastify@4.8.1- pnpm
pnpm add fastify@4.8.1
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-754: Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions
The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Choose languages with features such as exception handling that force the programmer to anticipate unusual conditions that may generate exceptions. Custom exceptions may need to be developed to handle unusual business-logic conditions. Be careful not to pass sensitive exceptions back to the user (CWE-209, CWE-248).
- Implementation: Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is expected.
- Implementation: If using exception handling, catch and throw specific exceptions instead of overly-general exceptions (CWE-396, CWE-397). Catch and handle exceptions as locally as possible so that exceptions do not propagate too far up the call stack (CWE-705). Avoid unchecked or uncaught exceptions where feasible (CWE-248).
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. Exposing additional information to a potential attacker in the context of an exceptional condition can help the attacker determine what attack vectors are most likely to succeed beyond DoS.
- 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.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery.
- Architecture and Design: Use system limits, which should help to prevent resource exhaustion. However, the product should still handle low resource conditions since they may still occur.
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