GHSA-7222-r37x-8q3m BIT-superset-2022-43719 CVE-2022-43719 PYSEC-2026-775
Apache Superset vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery via legacy REST API endpoints
High
PyPI
- Severity
- 8.8 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.59%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 48.10% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Fix
2.0.1- Upgrade apache-superset to this version or later
Description
Two legacy REST API endpoints for approval and request access are vulnerable to cross site request forgery. This issue affects Apache Superset version 1.5.2 and prior versions and version 2.0.0.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| apache-superset | <= 1.5.2 |
No fix yet |
| apache-superset | 1 listed versions | No fix yet |
| apache-superset | < 1.5.3>= 2.0.0, < 2.0.1 |
1.5.32.0.1 |
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.
apache-superset PyPI → 2.0.1
- pip
pip install --upgrade "apache-superset>=2.0.1"- poetry
poetry add "apache-superset>=2.0.1"- uv
uv add "apache-superset>=2.0.1"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
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-5cx2-vq3h-x52c Apache superset missing check for default SECRET_KEY | Critical Known exploited | Also affects apache-superset |
| GHSA-mwf2-qr4v-94h2 Apache Superset: Read-Only Bypass via Improper Input Validation on PostgreSQL Connections | Medium | Also affects apache-superset |
| GHSA-h294-8fxm-m2pj Apache Superset allows authenticated users to view sensitive data without explicit permissions | Medium | Also affects apache-superset |
| GHSA-3m2g-v7jf-7fxc Apache Superset Improper Authorization allows low-privileged users to bypass access controls | Medium | Also affects apache-superset |
| GHSA-gvxg-9hqx-f4rg Apache Superset allows privileged users to conduct error-based SQL Injection | Medium | Also affects apache-superset |
| GHSA-48m2-v2r8-h23m Apache Superset: Incomplete DISALLOWED_SQL_FUNCTIONS default list for ClickHouse engine | Medium | Also affects apache-superset |
| GHSA-mhpq-m962-mg92 Apache Superset allows authenticated users to discover metadata about datasources they don't have permission to access | Medium | Also affects apache-superset |
| GHSA-fxgf-3xh6-m2pp Apache Superset has bypass of `DISALLOWED_SQL_FUNCTIONS` that allows execution of blocked SQL functions | Medium | Also affects apache-superset |
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