GHSA-6jj6-gm7p-fcvv CVE-2024-36401
Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in geoserver
- Severity
- 9.3 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 99.81%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.96% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Jul 15, 2024
- Weakness
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- CWE-95 Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection')
- Fix
- Available
- 3 packages have a fixed version
Description
Summary
Multiple OGC request parameters allow Remote Code Execution (RCE) by unauthenticated users through specially crafted input against a default GeoServer installation due to unsafely evaluating property names as XPath expressions.
Details
The GeoTools library API that GeoServer calls evaluates property/attribute names for feature types in a way that unsafely passes them to the commons-jxpath library which can execute arbitrary code when evaluating XPath expressions. This XPath evaluation is intended to be used only by complex feature types (i.e., Application Schema data stores) but is incorrectly being applied to simple feature types as well which makes this vulnerability apply to ALL GeoServer instances.
PoC
No public PoC is provided but this vulnerability has been confirmed to be exploitable through WFS GetFeature, WFS GetPropertyValue, WMS GetMap, WMS GetFeatureInfo, WMS GetLegendGraphic and WPS Execute requests.
Impact
This vulnerability can lead to executing arbitrary code.
Workaround
A workaround exists by removing the gt-complex-x.y.jar file from the GeoServer where x.y is the GeoTools version (e.g., gt-complex-31.1.jar if running GeoServer 2.25.1). This will remove the vulnerable code from GeoServer but may break some GeoServer functionality or prevent GeoServer from deploying if the gt-complex module is needed by an extension you are using:
Mitigation for geoserver.war deploy:
- Stop the application server
- Unzip
geoserver.warinto a directory - Locate the file
WEB-INF/lib/gt-complex-x.y.jarand remove - Zip the directory into a new
geoserver.war - Restart the application server
Mitigation for GeoServer binary:
- Stop Jetty
- Locate the file
webapps/geoserver/WEB-INF/lib/gt-complex-x.y.jarand remove - Restart Jetty
The following extensions and community modules are known to have a direct dependency on gt-complex jar and are not expected function properly without it. This is not comprehensive list and additional GeoServer functionality may be dependent on the availability of gt-complex jar:
- Extensions: Application Schema, Catalog Services for the Web, MongoDB Data Store
- Community Modules: Features-Templating, OGC API Modules, Smart Data Loader, SOLR Data Store
Mitigation available for prior releases patching three jars in your existing install:
-
Patched
gt-app-schema,gt-complexandgt-xsd-corejars may be downloaded for GeoServer: 2.25.1, 2.24.3, 2.24.2, 2.23.2, 2.22.2, 2.21.5, 2.21.4,2.20.7, 2.20.4, 2.19.2, 2.18.0.As example the 2.25.1 page links to geoserver-2.25.1-patches.zip download on source forge.
-
Unzip the
geoserver-x.y.z-patches.zipwhich contains three jars that have been patched to configurecommons-jxpathwith an empty function list prior to use. These files are drop-in replacements with identical file names to those they are replacing. -
Follow the instructions above to locate
WEB-INF/libfolder and replace the existinggt-app-schema,gt-complexandgt-xsd-corejars with those supplied by the patch.
References
https://github.com/geotools/geotools/security/advisories/GHSA-w3pj-wh35-fq8w https://osgeo-org.atlassian.net/browse/GEOT-7587 https://github.com/geotools/geotools/pull/4797 https://github.com/Warxim/CVE-2022-41852?tab=readme-ov-file#workaround-for-cve-2022-41852
Affected versions
Maven
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| org.geoserver.web:gs-web-app | >= 2.24.0, < 2.24.4 |
2.24.4 |
| org.geoserver.web:gs-web-app | >= 2.25.0, < 2.25.2 |
2.25.2 |
| org.geoserver.web:gs-web-app | >= 2.23.0, < 2.23.6 |
2.23.6 |
| org.geoserver.web:gs-web-app | < 2.22.6 |
2.22.6 |
| org.geoserver:gs-wfs | >= 2.24.0, < 2.24.4 |
2.24.4 |
| org.geoserver:gs-wfs | >= 2.25.0, < 2.25.2 |
2.25.2 |
| org.geoserver:gs-wfs | >= 2.23.0, < 2.23.6 |
2.23.6 |
| org.geoserver:gs-wfs | < 2.22.6 |
2.22.6 |
| org.geoserver:gs-wms | >= 2.24.0, < 2.24.4 |
2.24.4 |
| org.geoserver:gs-wms | >= 2.25.0, < 2.25.2 |
2.25.2 |
| org.geoserver:gs-wms | >= 2.23.0, < 2.23.6 |
2.23.6 |
| org.geoserver:gs-wms | < 2.22.6 |
2.22.6 |
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.
org.geoserver.web:gs-web-app Maven → 2.24.4
- maven
<dependency><groupId>org.geoserver.web</groupId><artifactId>gs-web-app</artifactId><version>2.24.4</version></dependency>- gradle
implementation("org.geoserver.web:gs-web-app:2.24.4")
org.geoserver:gs-wfs Maven → 2.24.4
- maven
<dependency><groupId>org.geoserver</groupId><artifactId>gs-wfs</artifactId><version>2.24.4</version></dependency>- gradle
implementation("org.geoserver:gs-wfs:2.24.4")
org.geoserver:gs-wms Maven → 2.24.4
- maven
<dependency><groupId>org.geoserver</groupId><artifactId>gs-wms</artifactId><version>2.24.4</version></dependency>- gradle
implementation("org.geoserver:gs-wms:2.24.4")
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 9.3
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:A
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Attacked
CVSS 3.1 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H/E:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
- Exploit maturity
- H
Weakness
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- 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. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
CWE-95: Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection')
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes code syntax before using the input in a dynamic evaluation call (e.g. "eval").
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If possible, refactor your code so that it does not need to use eval() at all.
- 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.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
References
Advisories
Fixes and patches
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
- Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-fjf5-xgmq-5525 GeoServer is vulnerable to Unauthenticated XML External Entities (XXE) attack via WMS GetMap feature | Critical Known exploited | Also affects org.geoserver:gs-wms |
| GHSA-wf6j-gr27-g7ch GeoServer has a Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) vulnerability in processing FreeMarker templates | High | Also affects org.geoserver:gs-wms |
| GHSA-x4r9-gmw3-hxww GeoServer has a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) Vulnerability in its XML Entity Resolution | High | Also affects org.geoserver.web:gs-web-app |
| GHSA-7qmg-grcp-qf25 GeoServer has an arbitrary file write vulnerability in its Master Password Dump Page | High | Also affects org.geoserver.web:gs-web-app |
| GHSA-w66h-j855-qr72 GeoServer has a Reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in its WMS GetFeatureInfo HTML format | Medium | Also affects org.geoserver:gs-wms |
| GHSA-jj54-8f66-c5pc [XBOW-025-068] XML External Entity (XXE) Processing Vulnerability in GeoServer WFS Service | Critical | Also affects org.geoserver:gs-wfs |
| GHSA-gr67-pwcv-76gf GeoServer Infinite Loop Vulnerability in Jiffle process | High | Also affects org.geoserver:gs-wms |
| GHSA-h86g-x8mm-78m5 GeoServer Missing Authorization on REST API Index | Medium | Also affects org.geoserver.web:gs-web-app |
Credits: aaime, jodygarnett, sikeoka
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