GHSA-5fxv-xx5p-g2fv CVE-2022-0968
Integer Overflow in microweber
- Severity
- 7.2 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 3.73%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 89.83% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Microweber is a new generation CMS with drag and drop. The microweber application allows large characters to insert in the input field "first & last name" which can allow attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted HTTP request. The first name & last name input should be limited to 50 characters or max 100 characters
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| microweber/microweber | <= 1.2.11 |
No fix yet |
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.0 7.2
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound
The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.
- Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. If possible, choose a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
- 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]. Use libraries or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences. Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++). [REF-106]
- Implementation: Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range. Use unsigned integers where possible. This makes it easier to perform validation for integer overflows. When signed integers are required, ensure that the range check includes minimum values as well as maximum values.
- Implementation: Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles numbers that are too large or too small for its underlying representation. [REF-7] Also be careful to account for 32-bit, 64-bit, and other potential differences that may affect the numeric representation.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Implementation: Examine compiler warnings closely and eliminate problems with potential security implications, such as signed / unsigned mismatch in memory operations, or use of uninitialized variables. Even if the weakness is rarely exploitable, a single failure may lead to the compromise of the entire system.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-vv4x-qcpq-wgrg Microweber vulnerable to Path Traversal | High | Also affects microweber/microweber |
| GHSA-6w5w-jx4x-vjvw Microweber Cross-site Scripting vulnerability | Medium | Also affects microweber/microweber |
| GHSA-5jg5-xqfw-rv92 Microweber has a Cross-site Scripting vulnerability | Medium | Also affects microweber/microweber |
| GHSA-2x2j-3c2v-g3c2 Microweber XSS Vulnerability in the homepage Endpoint | High | Also affects microweber/microweber |
| GHSA-mvj3-hc7j-vp74 Microweber has Reflected XSS Vulnerability in the layout Parameter | Medium | Also affects microweber/microweber |
| GHSA-8357-fjvx-xrm8 Microweber has Reflected XSS Vulnerability in the id Parameter | Medium | Also affects microweber/microweber |
| GHSA-782f-gxj5-xvqc Microweber Has Stored XSS Vulnerability in User Profile Fields | High | Also affects microweber/microweber |
| GHSA-j64v-xh5w-8hqj Microweber CMS API has authenticated local file inclusion vulnerability | High | Also affects microweber/microweber |
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