GHSA-47ww-mq32-g4xw CVE-2013-7075
TYPO3 vulnerable to Insecure Unserialize via Content Editing Wizards component
- Severity
- 6.3 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.27%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 69.88% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-502 Deserialization of Untrusted Data
- Fix
4.5.32- Upgrade typo3/cms to this version or later
Description
The Content Editing Wizards component in TYPO3 4.5.0 through 4.5.31, 4.7.0 through 4.7.16, 6.0.0 through 6.0.11, and 6.1.0 through 6.1.6 allows remote authenticated backend users to unserialize arbitrary PHP objects, delete arbitrary files, and possibly have other unspecified impacts via an unspecified parameter, related to a "missing signature."
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| typo3/cms | >= 4.5.0, < 4.5.32 |
4.5.32 |
| typo3/cms | >= 4.7.0, < 4.7.17 |
4.7.17 |
| typo3/cms | >= 6.0.0, < 6.0.12 |
6.0.12 |
| typo3/cms | >= 6.1.0, < 6.1.7 |
6.1.7 |
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.
typo3/cms Packagist → 4.5.32
- composer
composer require typo3/cms:^4.5.32
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 6.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
- Implementation: When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
- Implementation: Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make fields transient to protect them from deserialization. An attempt to serialize and then deserialize a class containing transient fields will result in NULLs where the transient data should be. This is an excellent way to prevent time, environment-based, or sensitive variables from being carried over and used improperly.
- Implementation: Avoid having unnecessary types or gadgets (a sequence of instances and method invocations that can self-execute during the deserialization process, often found in libraries) available that can be leveraged for malicious ends. This limits the potential for unintended or unauthorized types and gadgets to be leveraged by the attacker. Add only acceptable classes to an allowlist. Note: new gadgets are constantly being discovered, so this alone is not a sufficient mitigation.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Employ cryptography of the data or code for protection. However, it's important to note that it would still be client-side security. This is risky because if the client is compromised then the security implemented on the client (the cryptography) can be bypassed.
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-f3wf-q4fj-3gxf TYPO3 Denial of Service in Online Media Asset Handling | Medium | Also affects typo3/cms |
| GHSA-6487-3qvg-8px9 TYPO3 Information Disclosure in Install Tool | Medium | Also affects typo3/cms |
| GHSA-f777-f784-36gm TYPO3 Security Misconfiguration in Install Tool Cookie | High | Also affects typo3/cms |
| GHSA-2rcw-9hrm-8q7q TYPO3 Cross-Site Scripting in Frontend User Login | Medium | Also affects typo3/cms |
| GHSA-7q33-hxwj-7p8v TYPO3 Cross-Site Scripting in Backend Modal Component | Medium | Also affects typo3/cms |
| GHSA-8m6j-p5jv-v69w TYPO3 Cross-Site Scripting in Online Media Asset Rendering | Medium | Also affects typo3/cms |
| GHSA-8h4m-r4wm-xj7r TYPO3 Arbitrary Code Execution via File List Module | High | Also affects typo3/cms |
| GHSA-g585-crjf-vhwq TYPO3 Denial of Service in Frontend Record Registration | High | Also affects typo3/cms |
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