GHSA-5fr8-xhqq-4p3q CVE-2019-12246
SilverStripe Denial of Service on flush and development URL tools
Medium
Packagist
- Severity
- 4.3 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.70%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 53.07% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Fix
4.4.0- Upgrade silverstripe/framework to this version or later
Description
SilverStripe before 4.4.0 allows a Denial of Service on flush and development URL tools.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| silverstripe/framework | >= 4.0.0, < 4.4.0 |
4.4.0 |
| silverstripe/framework | <= 3.6 |
No fix yet |
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.
silverstripe/framework Packagist → 4.4.0
- composer
composer require silverstripe/framework:^4.4.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 4.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
- Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
- Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
- Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
- Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
- Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
- Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-gvrw-qqp5-jgc5 Silverstripe Framework: Possible XSS attack through media embed | Medium | Also affects silverstripe/framework |
| GHSA-256q-hx8w-xcqx Silverstripe Framework user enumeration via timing attack on login and password reset forms | Medium | Also affects silverstripe/framework |
| GHSA-rhx4-hvx9-j387 Silverstripe Framework has a XSS vulnerability in HTML editor | Medium | Also affects silverstripe/framework |
| GHSA-74j9-xhqr-6qv3 Reflected Cross Site Scripting (XSS) in error message | Low | Also affects silverstripe/framework |
| GHSA-mqf3-qpc3-g26q Silverstripe Framework has a Reflected Cross Site Scripting (XSS) in error message | Low | Also affects silverstripe/framework |
| GHSA-ff6q-3c9c-6cf5 Silverstripe Framework has a XSS in form messages | Medium | Also affects silverstripe/framework |
| GHSA-7cmp-cgg8-4c82 Silverstripe Framework has a XSS via insert media remote file oembed | Medium | Also affects silverstripe/framework |
| GHSA-52cw-pvq9-9m5v Silverstripe uses TinyMCE which allows svg files linked in object tags | Medium | Also affects silverstripe/framework |
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