GHSA-7wfc-x4f7-gg2x CVE-2021-30180
Code injection in Apache Dubbo
Critical
Maven
- Severity
- 9.8 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 60.28%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.14% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-444 Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
2.7.10- Upgrade org.apache.dubbo:dubbo to this version or later
Description
Apache Dubbo prior to 2.7.9 support Tag routing which will enable a customer to route the request to the right server. These rules are used by the customers when making a request in order to find the right endpoint. When parsing these YAML rules, Dubbo customers may enable calling arbitrary constructors.
Affected versions
Maven
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| org.apache.dubbo:dubbo | >= 2.7.0, < 2.7.10 |
2.7.10 |
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.apache.dubbo:dubbo Maven → 2.7.10
- maven
<dependency><groupId>org.apache.dubbo</groupId><artifactId>dubbo</artifactId><version>2.7.10</version></dependency>- gradle
implementation("org.apache.dubbo:dubbo:2.7.10")
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-444: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')
The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Use a web server that employs a strict HTTP parsing procedure, such as Apache [REF-433].
- Implementation: Use only SSL communication.
- Implementation: Terminate the client session after each request.
- System Configuration: Turn all pages to non-cacheable.
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].
References
Advisories
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-97rv-88gf-phvr Apache Dubbo: Bypass deny serialize list check in Apache Dubbo | Critical | Also affects org.apache.dubbo:dubbo |
| GHSA-6x49-w35h-wqrj Bypass serialize checks in Apache Dubbo | Critical | Also affects org.apache.dubbo:dubbo |
| GHSA-933g-v89r-x8pf Apache Dubbo vulnerable to Deserialization of Untrusted Data | Critical | Also affects org.apache.dubbo:dubbo |
| GHSA-5qwq-g2hx-r6f7 Hessian Lite for Apache Dubbo deserialization vulnerability | Critical | Also affects org.apache.dubbo:dubbo |
| GHSA-gm48-83x4-84jg Server-side request forgery in Apache Dubbo | Medium | Also affects org.apache.dubbo:dubbo |
| GHSA-5mc7-m686-p6jg Deserialization of Untrusted Data in Apache Dubbo | Critical | Also affects org.apache.dubbo:dubbo |
| GHSA-qmfc-6www-fjqw Code injection in Apache Dubbo | Critical | Also affects org.apache.dubbo:dubbo |
| GHSA-gw4j-4229-q4px Server-Side Request Forgery in Apache Dubbo | Medium | Also affects org.apache.dubbo:dubbo |
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