Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

GHSA-c5wx-6c2c-f7rm BIT-typo3-2022-23503 CVE-2022-23503

TYPO3 CMS vulnerable to Arbitrary Code Execution via Form Framework

High Packagist
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.84%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 57.76% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Problem

Due to the lack of separating user-submitted data from the internal configuration in the Form Designer backend module, it was possible to inject code instructions to be processed and executed via TypoScript as PHP code.

The existence of individual TypoScript instructions for a particular form item (known as formDefinitionOverrides) and a valid backend user account with access to the form module are needed to exploit this vulnerability.

Solution

Update to TYPO3 versions 8.7.49 ELTS, 9.5.38 ELTS, 10.4.33, 11.5.20, 12.1.1 that fix the problem described above.

References

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
typo3/cms
>= 10.0.0, < 10.4.33
10.4.33
typo3/cms
>= 11.0.0, < 11.5.20
11.5.20
typo3/cms
>= 12.0.0, < 12.1.1
12.1.1
typo3/cms-core
>= 8.0.0, < 8.7.49
8.7.49
typo3/cms-core
>= 9.0.0, < 9.5.38
9.5.38
typo3/cms-core
>= 10.0.0, < 10.4.33
10.4.33
typo3/cms-core
>= 11.0.0, < 11.5.20
11.5.20
typo3/cms-core
>= 12.0.0, < 12.1.1
12.1.1

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.

typo3/cms Packagist → 10.4.33

composer
composer require typo3/cms:^10.4.33

typo3/cms-core Packagist → 8.7.49

composer
composer require typo3/cms-core:^8.7.49

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-68jx-f42c-7599
TYPO3 CMS - Broken Access Control in Backend and Install Tool
High Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-chm7-4vch-h8vr
TYPO3 CMS has Broken Access Control in its Media Module
High Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-jh32-v29g-68pq
TYPO3 CMS has Privilege Escalation & SQL Injection in its Form Framework
High Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-c78m-c52x-jgwp
TYPO3 CMS has Insecure Deserialization via Core API
Medium Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-jf56-v8jc-jcc5
TYPO3 CMS has Broken Access Control in its File Abstraction Layer
Low Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-2j54-93q2-3hjq
TYPO3 CMS has Broken Access Control in Backend API
Medium Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-q93m-25xv-94hh
TYPO3 CMS: Broken Access Control in Media Module
Medium Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-qcmw-6rm2-5x78
TYPO3 CMS has Broken Access Control in its DataHandler
Medium Also affects typo3/cms-core
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