GHSA-fq77-7p7r-83rj CVE-2020-5284
Directory Traversal in Next.js
Medium
npm
- Severity
- 4.4 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 44.78%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 98.77% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-23 Relative Path Traversal
- Fix
9.3.2- Upgrade next to this version or later
Description
Impact
- Not affected: Deployments on ZEIT Now v2 (https://zeit.co) are not affected
- Not affected: Deployments using the
serverlesstarget - Not affected: Deployments using
next export - Affected: Users of Next.js below 9.3.2
We recommend everyone to upgrade regardless of whether you can reproduce the issue or not.
Patches
https://github.com/zeit/next.js/releases/tag/v9.3.2
References
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| next | >= 0.9.9, < 9.3.2 |
9.3.2 |
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.
next npm → 9.3.2
- npm
npm install next@9.3.2- yarn
yarn add next@9.3.2- pnpm
pnpm add next@9.3.2
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 4.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-23: Relative Path Traversal
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize sequences such as ".." that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
How to prevent it
- 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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
References
Advisories
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-673q-mjm6-r5xr Next.js: Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution in `use cache` functions returning typed arrays | Critical | Also affects next |
| GHSA-2464-fhr4-w9xw Next.js: Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution in Image Optimization API when SVG files are used | Critical | Also affects next |
| GHSA-p3m5-59mp-jv5r Next.js: Denial of Service in App Router using Server Actions | High | Also affects next |
| GHSA-3w37-wq28-93x7 Next.js: Pending `use cache` fill can leak Draft Mode content into regular responses and persisted pages | Medium | Also affects next |
| GHSA-4jqv-mc3x-m676 Next.js has cache poisoning of SSG and ISR pages in self-hosted applications | Medium | Also affects next |
| GHSA-39w2-rjm5-chcv Next.js has information disclosure in development server's Model Context Protocol endpoint | Medium | Also affects next |
| GHSA-f87g-xv8r-7p7x Next.js has information disclosure in App Router metadata image routes via dynamicParams bypass | Medium | Also affects next |
| GHSA-mcj8-r9mp-w47p Next.js has cache poisoning in SSG/ISR rendering that leads to cross-user content substitution and persistent denial of service | Medium | Also affects next |
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