Skip to content

GHSA-crmm-hgp2-wgrp

Laravel Framework: Temporary Signed URL Path Confusion

Medium Packagist
Severity
4.2 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
—
No score published
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-116 Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
Fix
13.12.0
Upgrade laravel/framework to this version or later

Description

A vulnerability in Laravel's local filesystem driver allows temporary signed URLs to be parsed ambiguously, potentially misrouting requests and bypassing expiration enforcement.

Under certain conditions, a generated temporary signed URL can be interpreted differently by the server than intended at signing time. This may cause requests to resolve to an unintended resource, and can prevent expiration from being enforced, allowing expired URLs to remain valid indefinitely.

Impact

  • Expired temporary URLs may continue to be accepted
  • Requests may resolve to a different resource than the one that was signed
  • The upload variant may allow writes to reach an unintended destination

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
laravel/framework
>= 13.0.0, < 13.12.0
13.12.0
laravel/framework
< 12.61.1
12.61.1

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.

laravel/framework Packagist → 13.12.0

composer
composer require laravel/framework:^13.12.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.2

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

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

Weakness

CWE-116: Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output

The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.

How to prevent it
  • 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 the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error. Alternately, use built-in functions, but consider using wrappers in case those functions are discovered to have a vulnerability.
  • Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. For example, stored procedures can enforce database query structure and reduce the likelihood of SQL injection.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
  • Architecture and Design: In some cases, input validation may be an important strategy when output encoding is not a complete solution. For example, you may be providing the same output that will be processed by multiple consumers that use different encodings or representations. In other cases, you may be required to allow user-supplied input to contain control information, such as limited HTML tags that support formatting in a wiki or bulletin board. When this type of requirement must be met, use an extremely strict allowlist to limit which control sequences can be used. Verify that the resulting syntactic structure is what you expect. Use your normal encoding methods for the remainder of the input.
  • Architecture and Design: Use input validation as a defense-in-depth measure to reduce the likelihood of output encoding errors (see CWE-20).
  • Requirements: Fully specify which encodings are required by components that will be communicating with each other.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
CVE-2018-15133
Laravel Framework RCE Vulnerability
High Known exploited Also affects laravel/framework
GHSA-f9x3-7vq9-cph6
Laravel TokenGuard authentication bypass through non-string API credentials
Critical Also affects laravel/framework
GHSA-5wcm-3v2w-8362
Laravel relationship inclusion can trigger unauthorized data destruction
Medium Also affects laravel/framework
GHSA-jh5r-qr3c-85q8
Laravel: XSS in Debug Page Information
Low Also affects laravel/framework
GHSA-5vg9-5847-vvmq
Laravel Framework: CRLF injection in default email rule
High Also affects laravel/framework
GHSA-83wp-f5c3-hqqr
Laravel framework susceptible to reflected cross-site scripting
Medium Also affects laravel/framework
GHSA-546h-56qp-8jmw
Laravel framework susceptible to reflected cross-site scripting
Medium Also affects laravel/framework
GHSA-78fx-h6xr-vch4
Laravel has a File Validation Bypass
Critical Also affects laravel/framework
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