GHSA-5p75-vc5g-8rv2 CVE-2023-29003
SvelteKit vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery
- Severity
- 8.8 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.56%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 46.44% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
1.15.1- Upgrade @sveltejs/kit to this version or later
Description
Summary
The SvelteKit framework offers developers an option to create simple REST APIs. This is done by defining a +server.js file, containing endpoint handlers for different HTTP methods.
SvelteKit provides out-of-the-box cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protection to it’s users. The protection is implemented at kit/src/runtime/server/respond.js#L52. While the implementation does a sufficient job in mitigating common CSRF attacks, the protection can be bypassed by simply specifying a different Content-Type header value.
Details
The CSRF protection is implemented using the code shown below.
const forbidden =
// (1)
request.method === 'POST' &&
// (2)
request.headers.get('origin') !== url.origin &&
// (3)
is_form_content_type(request);
if (forbidden) {
// (4)
const csrf_error = error(403, `Cross-site ${request.method} form submissions are forbidden`);
if (request.headers.get('accept') === 'application/json') {
return json(csrf_error.body, { status: csrf_error.status });
}
return text(csrf_error.body.message, { status: csrf_error.status });
}
If the incoming request specifies a POST method (1), the protection will compare the server’s origin with the value of the HTTP Origin header (2). A mismatch between these values signals that a potential attack has been detected. The final check is performed on the request’s Content-Type header (3) whether the value is either application/x-www-form-urlencoded or multipart/form-data (kit/src/utils/http.js#L71). If all the previous checks pass, the request will be rejected with an 403 error response (4).
The is_form_content_type validation is not sufficient to mitigate all possible variations of this type of attack. If a CSRF attack is performed with the Content-Type header set to text/plain, the protection will be circumvented and the request will be processed by the endpoint handler.
<!-- ### PoC To reproduce this issue, create and run a simple server (by default running on `localhost:3000`) with a POST endpoint handler such as: ```js export async function POST({ request }) { const data = await request.json(); console.log(JSON.stringify(data)); return new Response(String('success')); } ``` Next, save the malicious HTML page: ```html <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head></head> <body> <h1 id="name"></h1> <form action="http://localhost:3000/api/test" method="POST" enctype="text/plain"> <input type="hidden" name="{"name":"test" value="","age":123}" /> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> </body> </html> ``` in a file named `index.html`. Run another web server, using Python’s built in http.server module (`python -m http.server`, by default running on `localhost:8000`), navigate to [http://localhost:8000/index.html](http://localhost:8000/index.html) and click the `Submit` button. Verify that the browser’s URL has changed to `localhost:3000` and that the text `success` is displayed on the screen. Additionally, inspect the console of the SvelteKit web server and verify that the request body (`{"name":"test=","age":123}`) was parsed as valid JSON and printed out. It's worth noting that this attack is possible only for JSON request bodies. Form data sent using `text/plain` will be rejected by the server. -->
Impact
If abused, this issue will allow malicious requests to be submitted from third-party domains, which can allow execution of operations within the context of the victim's session, and in extreme scenarios can lead to unauthorized access to users’ accounts.
Remediation
SvelteKit 1.15.1 updates the is_form_content_type function call in the CSRF protection logic to include text/plain.
As additional hardening of the CSRF protection mechanism against potential method overrides, SvelteKit 1.15.1 is now performing validation on PUT, PATCH and DELETE methods as well. This latter hardening is only needed to protect users who have put in some sort of ?_method= override feature themselves in their handle hook, so that the request that resolve sees could be PUT/PATCH/DELETE when the browser issues a POST request.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| @sveltejs/kit | < 1.15.1 |
1.15.1 |
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.
@sveltejs/kit npm → 1.15.1
- npm
npm install @sveltejs/kit@1.15.1- yarn
yarn add @sveltejs/kit@1.15.1- pnpm
pnpm add @sveltejs/kit@1.15.1
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-184: Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs
The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are not allowed by policy or otherwise require other action to neutralize before additional processing takes place, but the list is incomplete.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Do not rely exclusively on detecting disallowed inputs. There are too many variants to encode a character, especially when different environments are used, so there is a high likelihood of missing some variants. Only use detection of disallowed inputs as a mechanism for detecting suspicious activity. Ensure that you are using other protection mechanisms that only identify "good" input - such as lists of allowed inputs - and ensure that you are properly encoding your outputs.
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-27mw-82g8-phjj SvelteKit : XSS via untrusted cache-control header in prerendered page | Low | Also affects @sveltejs/kit |
| GHSA-pfhg-q3qv-9q6r SvelteKit: URL redirection to untrusted site via enhanced form submission | Medium | Also affects @sveltejs/kit |
| GHSA-29g2-3rmr-qm68 SvelteKit: ReDoS (O(n^2)) in content negotiation — unauthenticated DoS via the Accept header | Medium | Also affects @sveltejs/kit |
| GHSA-866w-xmhq-wj7x SvelteKit: Prototype pollution in file input deletion path in remote-function forms | Medium | Also affects @sveltejs/kit |
| GHSA-wqjv-9729-c5q2 SvelteKit: Big remote form function payloads can cause Node process to crash | Medium | Also affects @sveltejs/kit |
| GHSA-hgv7-v322-mmgr @sveltejs/kit: `query.batch` cross-talk | Medium | Also affects @sveltejs/kit |
| GHSA-3f6h-2hrp-w5wx @sveltejs/kit: Unvalidated redirect in handle hook causes Denial-of-Service | High | Also affects @sveltejs/kit |
| GHSA-2crg-3p73-43xp @sveltejs/adapter-node has a BODY_SIZE_LIMIT bypass | High | Also affects @sveltejs/kit |
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