Skip to content

GHSA-8727-m6gj-mc37 CVE-2020-8164

Possible Strong Parameters Bypass in ActionPack

High RubyGems
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
4.89%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 92.08% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-502 Deserialization of Untrusted Data
Fix
5.2.4.3
Upgrade actionpack to this version or later

Description

There is a strong parameters bypass vector in ActionPack.

Versions Affected: rails <= 6.0.3 Not affected: rails < 5.0.0 Fixed Versions: rails >= 5.2.4.3, rails >= 6.0.3.1

Impact

In some cases user supplied information can be inadvertently leaked from Strong Parameters. Specifically the return value of each, or each_value, or each_pair will return the underlying "untrusted" hash of data that was read from the parameters. Applications that use this return value may be inadvertently use untrusted user input.

Impacted code will look something like this:

def update
  # Attacker has included the parameter: `{ is_admin: true }`
  User.update(clean_up_params)
end

def clean_up_params
   params.each { |k, v|  SomeModel.check(v) if k == :name }
end

Note the mistaken use of each in the clean_up_params method in the above example.

Workarounds

Do not use the return values of each, each_value, or each_pair in your application.

Affected versions

RubyGems

PackageVulnerableFixed in
actionpack
>= 5.0.0, < 5.2.4.3
5.2.4.3
actionpack
>= 6.0.0, < 6.0.3.1
6.0.3.1

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.

actionpack RubyGems → 5.2.4.3

bundler
bundle update actionpack # Gemfile: gem "actionpack", ">= 5.2.4.3"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data

The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
  • Implementation: When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
  • Implementation: Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make fields transient to protect them from deserialization. An attempt to serialize and then deserialize a class containing transient fields will result in NULLs where the transient data should be. This is an excellent way to prevent time, environment-based, or sensitive variables from being carried over and used improperly.
  • Implementation: Avoid having unnecessary types or gadgets (a sequence of instances and method invocations that can self-execute during the deserialization process, often found in libraries) available that can be leveraged for malicious ends. This limits the potential for unintended or unauthorized types and gadgets to be leveraged by the attacker. Add only acceptable classes to an allowlist. Note: new gadgets are constantly being discovered, so this alone is not a sufficient mitigation.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Employ cryptography of the data or code for protection. However, it's important to note that it would still be client-side security. This is risky because if the client is compromised then the security implemented on the client (the cryptography) can be bypassed.
  • Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-6x85-j5j2-27jx
actionpack Path Traversal vulnerability
High Known exploited Also affects actionpack
GHSA-xrr4-p6fq-hjg7
Directory traversal vulnerability in Action View in Ruby on Rails
High Known exploited Also affects actionpack
GHSA-pgm4-439c-5jp6
Rails has a possible XSS vulnerability in its Action Pack debug exceptions
Medium Also affects actionpack
GHSA-vfm5-rmrh-j26v
Possible Content Security Policy bypass in Action Dispatch
Low Also affects actionpack
GHSA-vfg9-r3fq-jvx4
Possible ReDoS vulnerability in HTTP Token authentication in Action Controller
Medium Also affects actionpack
GHSA-x76w-6vjr-8xgj
Possible ReDoS vulnerability in query parameter filtering in Action Dispatch
Medium Also affects actionpack
GHSA-fwhr-88qx-h9g7
Missing security headers in Action Pack on non-HTML responses
Critical Also affects actionpack
GHSA-9822-6m93-xqf4
Rails has possible XSS Vulnerability in Action Controller
Medium Also affects actionpack
Is this in your code?

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