GHSA-74j6-3hh4-w3f5 CVE-2022-3267 PYSEC-2022-284
rdiffweb Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability
Medium
PyPI
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.39%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 33.22% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Fix
2.4.6- Upgrade rdiffweb to this version or later
Description
rdiffweb prior to 2.4.6 is vulnerable to cross-site request forgery on the repository settings. A malicious user can change the settings of a repository by sending a URL to the victim. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.6.
Affected versions
PyPI
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.
rdiffweb PyPI → 2.4.6
- pip
pip install --upgrade "rdiffweb>=2.4.6"- poetry
poetry add "rdiffweb>=2.4.6"- uv
uv add "rdiffweb>=2.4.6"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Passive
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 4.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
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-v4gp-hf5j-4566 IKUS Rdiffweb allows an attacker with any valid or stolen access token to act as other users | High | Also affects rdiffweb |
| GHSA-c4rv-2j6x-pq7x Rdiffweb Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability | High | Also affects rdiffweb |
| GHSA-wwrg-2w5j-grvx RDiffWeb vulnerable to Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling | Medium | Also affects rdiffweb |
| GHSA-wf33-6x33-wcf9 rdiffweb vulnerable to Authentication Bypass by Primary Weakness | High | Also affects rdiffweb |
| GHSA-m8r9-qxx8-mrxp rdiffweb Improper Access Control vulnerability | Critical | Also affects rdiffweb |
| GHSA-h5wp-jrqc-cwwx rdiffweb vulnerable to Open Redirect | High | Also affects rdiffweb |
| GHSA-83pm-7v48-5jp4 rdiffweb vulnerable to Special Element Injection | Medium | Also affects rdiffweb |
| GHSA-7q4r-x5qg-mmcp rdiffweb has no rate limit on resend email feature | Medium | Also affects rdiffweb |
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