GHSA-694m-jhr9-pf77 CVE-2018-1000211
Doorkeeper subject to Incorrect Permission Assignment
High
RubyGems
- Severity
- 7.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.55%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 75.13% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-732 Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
- Fix
4.4.0- Upgrade doorkeeper to this version or later
Description
Doorkeeper version 4.2.0 and later contains a Incorrect Access Control vulnerability in Token revocation API's authorized method that can result in Access tokens are not revoked for public OAuth apps, leaking access until expiry.
Affected versions
RubyGems
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| doorkeeper | >= 4.2.0, < 4.4.0 |
4.4.0 |
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.
doorkeeper RubyGems → 4.4.0
- bundler
bundle update doorkeeper # Gemfile: gem "doorkeeper", ">= 4.4.0"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.0 7.5
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-732: Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: When using a critical resource such as a configuration file, check to see if the resource has insecure permissions (such as being modifiable by any regular user) [REF-62], and generate an error or even exit the software if there is a possibility that the resource could have been modified by an unauthorized party.
- Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully defining distinct user groups, privileges, and/or roles. Map these against data, functionality, and the related resources. Then set the permissions accordingly. This will allow you to maintain more fine-grained control over your resources. [REF-207]
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Implementation, Installation: During program startup, explicitly set the default permissions or umask to the most restrictive setting possible. Also set the appropriate permissions during program installation. This will prevent you from inheriting insecure permissions from any user who installs or runs the program.
- System Configuration: For all configuration files, executables, and libraries, make sure that they are only readable and writable by the software's administrator.
- Documentation: Do not suggest insecure configuration changes in documentation, especially if those configurations can extend to resources and other programs that are outside the scope of the application.
- Installation: Do not assume that a system administrator will manually change the configuration to the settings that are recommended in the software's manual.
- Operation, System Configuration: Ensure that the software runs properly under the United States Government Configuration Baseline (USGCB) [REF-199] or an equivalent hardening configuration guide, which many organizations use to limit the attack surface and potential risk of deployed software.
- Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to disable public access.
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-685w-vc84-wxcx Doorkeeper vulnerable to Cross-site Request Forgery | Medium | 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-6627-m3xw-93mp filelock: StrictSoftFileLock creates its claim directories without the lock mode, so another local user with a write bit on them can end a live hold | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-732 |
| GHSA-8mx5-7m5m-r77g filelock: WindowsFileLock ignores mode: a 0o600 lock file and the ReadWriteLock database inherit the directory ACL | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-732 |
| GHSA-4596-2p6p-28cv MCP Atlassian: Insecure File Permissions on OAuth Token Storage | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-732 |
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