GHSA-685w-vc84-wxcx CVE-2014-8144
Doorkeeper vulnerable to Cross-site Request Forgery
Medium
RubyGems
- Severity
- Medium
- The publisher's own rating, not a CVSS score
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.65%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 51.32% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Fix
1.4.1- Upgrade doorkeeper to this version or later
Description
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in doorkeeper before 1.4.1 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims for requests that read a user OAuth authorization code via unknown vectors.
Affected versions
RubyGems
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| doorkeeper | < 1.4.1 |
1.4.1 |
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.
doorkeeper RubyGems → 1.4.1
- bundler
bundle update doorkeeper # Gemfile: gem "doorkeeper", ">= 1.4.1"
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-7w2c-w47h-789w Doorkeeper Improper Authentication vulnerability | Medium | Also affects doorkeeper |
| GHSA-j7vx-8mqj-cqp9 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor in Doorkeeper | High | Also affects doorkeeper |
| GHSA-694m-jhr9-pf77 Doorkeeper subject to Incorrect Permission Assignment | High | Also affects doorkeeper |
| GHSA-hwhh-2fwm-cfgw Doorkeeper is vulnerable to stored XSS and code execution | Medium | Also affects doorkeeper |
| GHSA-3m6r-39p3-jq25 Doorkeeper is vulnerable to replay attacks | Critical | Also affects doorkeeper |
| GHSA-2p8c-gr87-2676 Electron: SameSite cookie restrictions are not applied to windows opened from links | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-352 |
| GO-2026-6773 Nginx UI: Casdoor SSO callback uses a constant `state` parameter (login CSRF) | High | Same weakness, CWE-352 |
| GHSA-9ff2-p842-45wq Contao: Cross-site request forgery in custom backend actions | Low | Same weakness, CWE-352 |
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