Skip to content

GHSA-cw58-gpgw-hwx2 CVE-2020-7940 PYSEC-2020-89

Plone allows weak passwords

High PyPI
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.26%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 69.73% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-521 Weak Password Requirements
Fix
4.3.20
Upgrade plone to this version or later

Description

Missing password strength checks on some forms in Plone 4.3 through 5.2.0 allow users to set weak passwords, leading to easier cracking.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
plone
>= 4.3, < 4.3.20
4.3.20
plone
>= 5.0rc1, < 5.1.7
5.1.7
plone
>= 5.2.0, < 5.2.2
5.2.2
plone
>= 4.3, < 5.2.1
5.2.1

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.

plone PyPI → 4.3.20

pip
pip install --upgrade "plone>=4.3.20"
poetry
poetry add "plone>=4.3.20"
uv
uv add "plone>=4.3.20"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-521: Weak Password Requirements

The product does not require that users should have strong passwords.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: A product's design should require adherance to an appropriate password policy. Specific password requirements depend strongly on contextual factors, but it is recommended to contain the following attributes: Enforcement of a minimum and maximum length Restrictions against password reuse Restrictions against using common passwords Restrictions against using contextual string in the password (e.g., user id, app name) Depending on the threat model, the password policy may include several additional attributes. Complex passwords requiring mixed character sets (alpha, numeric, special, mixed case) Increasing the range of characters makes the password harder to crack and may be appropriate for systems relying on single factor authentication. Unfortunately, a complex password may be difficult to memorize, encouraging a user to select a short password or to incorrectly manage the password (write it down). Another disadvantage of this approach is that it often does not result in a significant increases in overal password complexity due to people's predictable usage of various symbols. Large Minimum Length (encouraging passphrases instead of passwords) Increasing the number of characters makes the password harder to crack and may be appropriate for systems relying on single factor authentication. A disadvantage of this approach is that selecting a good passphrase is not easy and poor passwords can still be generated. Some prompting may be needed to encourage long un-predictable passwords. Randomly Chosen Secrets Generating a password for the user can help make sure that length and complexity requirements are met, and can result in secure passwords being used. A disadvantage of this approach is that the resulting password or passpharse may be too difficult to memorize, encouraging them to be written down. See NIST 800-63B [REF-1053] for further information on password requirements.
  • Architecture and Design: Consider a second authentication factor beyond the password, which prevents the password from being a single point of failure. See CWE-308 for further information.
  • Implementation: Consider implementing a password complexity meter to inform users when a chosen password meets the required attributes.
  • Implementation: Previously, "password expiration" was widely advocated as a defense-in-depth approach to minimize the risk of weak passwords, and it has become a common practice. Password expiration requires a password to be changed within a fixed time window (such as every 90 days). However, this approach has significant limitations in the current threat landscape, and its utility has been reduced in light of the adoption of related protection mechanisms (such as password complexity and computational effort), along with the recognition that regular password changes often caused users to generate more predictable passwords. As a result, this is now a Discouraged Common Practice [REF-1488] [REF-1489], especially as the sole factor in protecting passwords. It is still strongly encouraged to force password changes in case of evidence of compromise, but this is not the same as a forced "expiration" on an arbitrary time frame.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-xg5p-8wg5-rhxm
Phone information disclosure vulnerability
High Also affects plone
GHSA-5xfx-55x4-j223
Cross-Frame Scripting vulnerability has been found on Plone CMS
High Also affects plone
GHSA-47p5-p3jw-w78w
Server-Side Request Forgery in Plone CMS
High Also affects plone
GHSA-cvwc-g7fw-7xrj
Plone XSS Vulnerability
Medium Also affects plone
GHSA-pwgm-jvqv-6v8p
Plone anonymous access to sub-objects in CMFEditions where KwAsAttributes classes were publishable
High Also affects plone
GHSA-46f9-f8jm-mw2x
Plone Cross-site Scripting vulnerability in the LiveSearch module
Medium Also affects plone
GHSA-hjp5-hv33-q58g
Plone credentials stored in session cookie
Medium Also affects plone
GHSA-593c-j348-f3gv
Plone Improper Session Management
High Also affects plone
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