GHSA-4p5m-gvpf-f3x5 BIT-solr-2024-52012 CVE-2024-52012
Apache Solr Relative Path Traversal vulnerability
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 40.92%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 98.66% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-23 Relative Path Traversal
- Fix
9.8.0- Upgrade org.apache.solr:solr-core to this version or later
Description
Relative Path Traversal vulnerability in Apache Solr.
Solr instances running on Windows are vulnerable to arbitrary filepath write-access, due to a lack of input-sanitation in the "configset upload" API. Commonly known as a "zipslip", maliciously constructed ZIP files can use relative filepaths to write data to unanticipated parts of the filesystem. This issue affects Apache Solr: from 6.6 through 9.7.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 9.8.0, which fixes the issue. Users unable to upgrade may also safely prevent the issue by using Solr's "Rule-Based Authentication Plugin" to restrict access to the configset upload API, so that it can only be accessed by a trusted set of administrators/users.
Affected versions
Maven
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| org.apache.solr:solr-core | >= 6.6, < 9.8.0 |
9.8.0 |
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.
org.apache.solr:solr-core Maven → 9.8.0
- maven
<dependency><groupId>org.apache.solr</groupId><artifactId>solr-core</artifactId><version>9.8.0</version></dependency>- gradle
implementation("org.apache.solr:solr-core:9.8.0")
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Unreported
CVSS 3.1 5.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-23: Relative Path Traversal
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize sequences such as ".." that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
How to prevent it
- 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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
- 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 |
|---|---|---|
| CVE-2019-17558 Improper Input Validation in Apache Solr | High Known exploited | Also affects org.apache.solr:solr-core |
| CVE-2019-0193 XML External Entity (XXE) Injection in Apache Solr | High Known exploited | Also affects org.apache.solr:solr-core |
| GHSA-qhr7-h655-pw6r Apache Solr has hardcoded credentials in the Basic Authentication setup tool | Critical | Also affects org.apache.solr:solr-core |
| GHSA-vc2w-4v3p-2mqw Apache Solr: Insufficient file-access checking in standalone core-creation requests | High | Also affects org.apache.solr:solr-core |
| GHSA-qr3p-2xj2-q7hq Apache Solr: Unauthorized bypass of certain "predefined permission" rules in the RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin | High | Also affects org.apache.solr:solr-core |
| GHSA-68r2-fwcg-qpm8 Apache Solr vulnerable to Execution with Unnecessary Privileges | Medium | Also affects org.apache.solr:solr-core |
| GHSA-37vr-vmg4-jwpw Apache Solr: Backup/Restore APIs allow for deployment of executables in malicious ConfigSets | High | Also affects org.apache.solr:solr-core |
| GHSA-4wxw-42wx-2wfx Apache Solr Schema Designer blindly "trusts" all configsets | High | Also affects org.apache.solr:solr-core |
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