Skip to content

GHSA-5757-v49g-f6r7 BIT-harbor-2024-22244 CVE-2024-22244 GO-2024-2915

Open Redirect URL in Harbor

Medium Go
Severity
4.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.36%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 29.95% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-601 URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')
Fix
2.8.5
Upgrade github.com/goharbor/harbor to this version or later

Description

Description

Under OIDC authentication mode, there is a redirect_url parameter exposed in the URL which is used to redirect the current user to the defined location after the successful OIDC login, This redirect_url can be an ambiguous URL and can be used to embed a phishing URL. For example: if a user clicks the URL with a malicious redirect_url:

https://<harbor_hostnmae>/c/oidc/login?redirect_url=https://<redirect_domain>

It might redirect the current user without their knowledge to a malicious site, posing a potential risk. To avoid this issue, the redirect_url should be checked if it is a local path when reading it from the original request URL.

//src/core/controllers/oidc.go
...
redirectURL := oc.Ctx.Request.URL.Query().Get("redirect_url")
if !utils.IsLocalPath(redirectURL) {
    log.Errorf("invalid redirect url: %v", redirectURL)
    oc.SendBadRequestError(fmt.Errorf("cannot redirect to other site"))
    return
}
if err := oc.SetSession(redirectURLKey, redirectURL); err != nil {
...

Impact

When Harbor is configured with OIDC authentication and users log in via a link outside the Harbor server, it might be vulnerable to an open redirect attack. This attack only involves the OIDC Harbor user, if the current Harbor instance is not configured with OIDC auth, the redirect_url doesn't exist and the Harbor instance is not vulnerable to the open redirect attack.

The following versions of Harbor are involved: <=Harbor 2.8.4, <=Harbor 2.9.2, <= Harbor 2.10.0

Patches

Harbor 2.8.5, Harbor 2.9.3, Harbor 2.10.1

Workarounds

When the Harbor is configured with OIDC authentication, warn the user not to log into the Harbor through external links.

References

N/A

Credit

Thanks Arnaud Cordier (arnaud@cordier.work)

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/goharbor/harbor
< 2.8.5
2.8.5
github.com/goharbor/harbor
>= 2.9.0, < 2.9.3
2.9.3
github.com/goharbor/harbor
>= 2.10.0, < 2.10.1
2.10.1
github.com/goharbor/harbor
< 2.8.5+incompatible
>= 2.9.0+incompatible, < 2.9.3+incompatible
>= 2.10.0+incompatible, < 2.10.1+incompatible
2.8.5+incompatible
2.9.3+incompatible
2.10.1+incompatible

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.

github.com/goharbor/harbor Go → 2.8.5

go
go get github.com/goharbor/harbor@v2.8.5 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.3

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-601: URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')

The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.

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. Use a list of approved URLs or domains to be used for redirection.
  • Architecture and Design: Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "/login.asp" and ID 2 could map to "http://www.example.com/". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-45] provide this capability.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that no externally-supplied requests are honored by requiring that all redirect requests include a unique nonce generated by the application [REF-483]. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls. Many open redirect problems occur because the programmer assumed that certain inputs could not be modified, such as cookies and hidden form fields.
  • 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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-prh4-vhfh-24mj
Harbor: LDAP password and OIDC secret are not redacted in the audit log
Medium Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor
GHSA-hj7x-hmf2-hc2p
Harbor allows the use of the default password for web UI login
Critical Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor
GHSA-h27m-3qw8-3pw8
Possible ORM Leak Vulnerability in the Harbor
Medium Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor
GHSA-f9vc-vf3r-pqqq
Harbor repository description page has Cross-site Scripting vulnerability
Medium Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor
GHSA-r864-28pw-8682
Harbor fails to validate the user permissions when updating p2p preheat policies
High Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor
GHSA-hw28-333w-qxp3
Harbor fails to validate the user permissions when updating project configurations
Medium Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor
GHSA-vw63-824v-qf2j
SQL Injection in Harbor scan log API
Medium Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor
GHSA-mq6f-5xh5-hgcf
Harbor timing attack risk
Medium Also affects github.com/goharbor/harbor
Is this in your code?

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