GHSA-97vm-c39p-jr86 CVE-2011-10019
Spree has Remote Command Execution vulnerability in search functionality
Critical
RubyGems
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 5.80%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 93.13% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-1321 Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution')
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
0.60.2- Upgrade spree to this version or later
Description
Spreecommerce versions prior to 0.60.2 contains a remote command execution vulnerability in its search functionality. The application fails to properly sanitize input passed via the search[send][] parameter, which is dynamically invoked using Ruby’s send method. This allows attackers to execute arbitrary shell commands on the server without authentication.
Affected versions
RubyGems
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| spree | < 0.60.2 |
0.60.2 |
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.
spree RubyGems → 0.60.2
- bundler
bundle update spree # Gemfile: gem "spree", ">= 0.60.2"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- High
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- High
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- High
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-1321: Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution')
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies attributes that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control modifications of attributes of the object prototype.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: By freezing the object prototype first (for example, Object.freeze(Object.prototype)), modification of the prototype becomes impossible.
- Architecture and Design: By blocking modifications of attributes that resolve to object prototype, such as proto or prototype, this weakness can be mitigated.
- Implementation: When handling untrusted objects, validating using a schema can be used.
- Implementation: By using an object without prototypes (via Object.create(null) ), adding object prototype attributes by accessing the prototype via the special attributes becomes impossible, mitigating this weakness.
- Implementation: Map can be used instead of objects in most cases. If Map methods are used instead of object attributes, it is not possible to access the object prototype or modify it.
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
Packages
Other links
- github.com/orgs/spree
- github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/spree/CVE-2011-10019.yml
- raw.githubusercontent.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/master/modules/exploits/multi/http/spree…
- web.archive.org/web/20111009192436/http://spreecommerce.com/blog/2011/10/05/remote-c…
- exploit-db.com/exploits/17941
- vulncheck.com/advisories/spreecommerce-search-parameter-rce
- web.archive.org/web/20111009192436/http://spreecommerce.com/blog/2011/10/05/remote-c…
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-xf4v-w5x5-pv79 Spree: CSV Formula Injection in Customer Export | Medium | Also affects spree |
| GHSA-x485-rhg3-cqr4 Spree Commerce is vulnerable to RCE through Search API | Critical | Also affects spree |
| GHSA-7h48-m3rw-vr27 Spree does not properly restrict the use of a hash to provide values for a model's attributes | Medium | Also affects spree |
| GHSA-g466-57gh-cqfw Spree uses a hardcoded hash value | Medium | Also affects spree |
| GHSA-hwrx-wc75-mgh7 Spree allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information | Medium | Also affects spree |
| GHSA-f8cm-364f-q9qh Ensure that doorkeeper_token is valid when authenticating requests in API v2 calls | High | Also affects spree |
| GHSA-jxx8-v83v-rhw3 Spree Improper Input Validation vulnerability | Medium | Also affects spree |
| GHSA-6wvx-3r32-xmcg Forge: Prototype Pollution in forge.http cookie handling via a malicious Set-Cookie | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-1321 |
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