GHSA-66hf-2p6w-jqfw CVE-2021-43808
Laravel Framework XSS in Blade templating engine
- Severity
- 6.1 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.83%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 57.42% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-327 Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm
- CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
A security researcher has disclosed a possible XSS vulnerability in the Blade templating engine.
Given the following two Blade templates:
resources/views/parent.blade.php:
@section('content')
<input value="{{ $value }}">
@show
resources/views/child.blade.php:
@extends('parent')
@section('content')
<input value="{{ $value }}">
@endsection
And a route like the following:
Route::get('/example', function() {
$value = '//localhost/###parent-placeholder-040f06fd774092478d450774f5ba30c5da78acc8## onclick=location.assign(this.value);//';
return view('child', ['value' => $value]);
});
The broken HTML element may be clicked and the user is taken to another location in their browser due to XSS. This is due to the user being able to guess the parent placeholder SHA-1 hash by trying common names of sections. If the parent template contains an exploitable HTML structure an XSS vulnerability can be exposed.
This vulnerability has been patched by determining the parent placeholder at runtime and using a random hash that is unique to each request.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| illuminate/view | < 6.20.42 |
6.20.42 |
| illuminate/view | >= 7.0.0, < 7.30.6 |
7.30.6 |
| illuminate/view | >= 8.0.0, < 8.75.0 |
8.75.0 |
| laravel/framework | < 6.20.42 |
6.20.42 |
| laravel/framework | >= 7.0.0, < 7.30.6 |
7.30.6 |
| laravel/framework | >= 8.0.0, < 8.75.0 |
8.75.0 |
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.
illuminate/view Packagist → 6.20.42
- composer
composer require illuminate/view:^6.20.42
laravel/framework Packagist → 6.20.42
- composer
composer require laravel/framework:^6.20.42
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 6.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations. As with all cryptographic mechanisms, the source code should be available for analysis. For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-2 certification [REF-1192]. Do not develop custom or private cryptographic algorithms. They will likely be exposed to attacks that are well-understood by cryptographers. Reverse engineering techniques are mature. If the algorithm can be compromised if attackers find out how it works, then it is especially weak. Periodically ensure that the cryptography has not become obsolete. Some older algorithms, once thought to require a billion years of computing time, can now be broken in days or hours. This includes MD4, MD5, SHA1, DES, and other algorithms that were once regarded as strong. [REF-267]
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that the design allows one cryptographic algorithm to be replaced with another in the next generation or version. Where possible, use wrappers to make the interfaces uniform. This will make it easier to upgrade to stronger algorithms. With hardware, design the product at the Intellectual Property (IP) level so that one cryptographic algorithm can be replaced with another in the next generation of the hardware product.
- Architecture and Design: Carefully manage and protect cryptographic keys (see CWE-320). If the keys can be guessed or stolen, then the strength of the cryptography itself is irrelevant.
- 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]. Industry-standard implementations will save development time and may be more likely to avoid errors that can occur during implementation of cryptographic algorithms. Consider the ESAPI Encryption feature.
- Implementation, Architecture and Design: When using industry-approved techniques, use them correctly. Don't cut corners by skipping resource-intensive steps (CWE-325). These steps are often essential for preventing common attacks.
CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
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]. Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
- Implementation, Architecture and Design: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies. For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters. Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the: HTML body Element attributes (such as src="XYZ") URIs JavaScript sections Cascading Style Sheets and style property etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body. Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
- 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.
- 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.
- Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
- Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component. The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
- Implementation: With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
- Implementation: To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
- 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 dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most ef
- 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.
- 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].
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/laravel/framework/security/advisories/GHSA-66hf-2p6w-jqfw
- github.com/laravel/framework/pull/39906
- github.com/laravel/framework/pull/39908
- github.com/laravel/framework/pull/39909
- github.com/laravel/framework/commit/b8174169b1807f36de1837751599e2828ceddb9b
- github.com/FriendsOfPHP/security-advisories/blob/master/illuminate/view/CVE-202…
- github.com/FriendsOfPHP/security-advisories/blob/master/laravel/framework/CVE-2…
- github.com/laravel/framework/releases/tag/v6.20.42
- github.com/laravel/framework/releases/tag/v7.30.6
- github.com/laravel/framework/releases/tag/v8.75.0
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| CVE-2018-15133 Laravel Framework RCE Vulnerability | High Known exploited | Also affects laravel/framework |
| GHSA-f9x3-7vq9-cph6 Laravel TokenGuard authentication bypass through non-string API credentials | Critical | Also affects laravel/framework |
| GHSA-5wcm-3v2w-8362 Laravel relationship inclusion can trigger unauthorized data destruction | Medium | Also affects laravel/framework |
| GHSA-jh5r-qr3c-85q8 Laravel: XSS in Debug Page Information | Low | Also affects laravel/framework |
| GHSA-crmm-hgp2-wgrp Laravel Framework: Temporary Signed URL Path Confusion | Medium | Also affects laravel/framework |
| GHSA-5vg9-5847-vvmq Laravel Framework: CRLF injection in default email rule | High | Also affects laravel/framework |
| GHSA-83wp-f5c3-hqqr Laravel framework susceptible to reflected cross-site scripting | Medium | Also affects laravel/framework |
| GHSA-546h-56qp-8jmw Laravel framework susceptible to reflected cross-site scripting | Medium | Also affects laravel/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