GHSA-6mv8-95x5-xcq9 CVE-2023-6038
H2O local file inclusion vulnerability
High
Maven
- Severity
- 9.3 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 4.34%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 91.21% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
A Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability exists in the h2o-3 REST API, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to read arbitrary files on the server with the permissions of the user running the h2o-3 instance. This issue affects the default installation and does not require user interaction. The vulnerability can be exploited by making specific GET or POST requests to the ImportFiles and ParseSetup endpoints, respectively. This issue was identified in version 3.40.0.4 of h2o-3.
Affected versions
Maven
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| ai.h2o:h2o-core | <= 3.40.0.4 |
No fix yet |
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.0 9.3
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-29: Path Traversal: '\..\filename'
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '\..\filename' (leading backslash dot dot) sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
How to prevent it
- 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 validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
CWE-862: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
- 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. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-qmcv-hh7c-3m56 H2O-3 is Vulnerable to Code Injection | Critical | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
| GHSA-wj3h-wx8g-x699 H2O has an External Control of File Name or Path vulnerability | Critical | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
| GHSA-5w3j-gwgh-4rfv H2O affected by a deserialization vulnerability | Critical | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
| GHSA-g48v-3p35-88jr H2O Vulnerable to Arbitrary File Overwrite | High | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
| GHSA-5c8j-g96x-cj78 H2O Vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via `HEAD` Request | High | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
| GHSA-p2vc-m5fv-9w9m H2O Vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via `/3/ImportFiles` Endpoint | High | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
| GHSA-6w62-3jvj-mfj6 H2O Vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via Large GZIP Parsing | High | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
| GHSA-m37h-8r48-2cxj H2O Vulnerable to Execution of Arbitrary Files | Medium | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
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