GHSA-83vp-6jqg-6cmr CVE-2022-24748
Incorrect Authentication in shopware
- Severity
- 6.8 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.76%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 55.25% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
6.4.8.2- Upgrade shopware/core to this version or later
Description
Impact
Modify Customers, create Orders without App Permission
Patches
We recommend updating to the current version 6.4.8.2. You can get the update to 6.4.8.2 regularly via the Auto-Updater or directly via the download overview.
https://www.shopware.com/en/download/#shopware-6
Workarounds
For older versions of 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, corresponding security measures are also available via a plugin. For the full range of functions, we recommend updating to the latest Shopware version.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| shopware/core | < 6.4.8.2 |
6.4.8.2 |
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.
shopware/core Packagist → 6.4.8.2
- composer
composer require shopware/core:^6.4.8.2
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 6.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-287: Improper Authentication
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.
CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
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-gq96-5pfx-f4vc Shopware: SSRF in Media External-Link Endpoint Bypasses IP Validation | Medium | Also affects shopware/core |
| GHSA-xvhc-gm7j-mhmc Shopware: Stored XSS via SVG file upload — no SVG sanitization | Medium | Also affects shopware/core |
| GHSA-9v5m-39wh-5chq Shopware: Unauthorized Payment Trigger for Foreign Orders via /store-api/handle-payment | Medium | Also affects shopware/core |
| GHSA-f8q6-3g5w-jjr6 Shopware: Admin API ACL Bypass in Order State Transition Endpoints | Medium | Also affects shopware/core |
| GHSA-4x3x-869w-xx3m Shopware SSO referer trust leading to an arbitrary redirect target | Medium | Also affects shopware/core |
| GHSA-7w52-7jvm-m9vw Shopware: Timing-attack on admin panel allowing enumeration of administrator usernames | Low | Also affects shopware/core |
| GHSA-v39m-97p8-gqg7 Shopware: Privilege escalation: non-admin user with user:create ACL can create admin accounts | Medium | Also affects shopware/core |
| GHSA-8v9p-g828-v98f Shopware: Admin Account Takeover via User Recovery Hash Exposure | Medium | Also affects shopware/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