GHSA-fcqf-h4h4-695m CVE-2011-3186
actionpack CRLF injection vulnerability
Medium
RubyGems
- Severity
- Medium
- The publisher's own rating, not a CVSS score
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.75%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 77.84% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
2.3.13- Upgrade actionpack to this version or later
Description
CRLF injection vulnerability in actionpack/lib/action_controller/response.rb in Ruby on Rails 2.3.x before 2.3.13 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers and conduct HTTP response splitting attacks via the Content-Type header.
Affected versions
RubyGems
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| actionpack | >= 2.3.0, < 2.3.13 |
2.3.13 |
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 → 2.3.13
- bundler
bundle update actionpack # Gemfile: gem "actionpack", ">= 2.3.13"
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
- github.com/rails/rails/commit/11dafeaa7533be26441a63618be93a03869c83a9
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
- github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/actionpack/CVE-2011-3186.yml
- groups.google.com/forum
- web.archive.org/web/20150201000000*/http://secunia.com/advisories/45921
- groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-security/msg/bbe342e43abaa78c
- lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2011-September/065137.html
- debian.org/security/2011/dsa-2301
- openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2011/08/17/1
- openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2011/08/19/11
- openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2011/08/20/1
- openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2011/08/22/13
- openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2011/08/22/14
- openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2011/08/22/5
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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