GHSA-fw9x-cqjq-7jx5 CVE-2023-43649
baserCMS CSRF vulnerability in Content preview Feature
- Severity
- 4.7 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.42%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 36.47% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Fix
4.8.0- Upgrade baserproject/basercms to this version or later
Description
There is a CSRF Vulnerability in Content preview Feature to baserCMS.
This is a vulnerability that needs to be addressed when the management system is used by an unspecified number of users. If you are eligible, please update to the new version as soon as possible.
Target
baserCMS 4.7.8 and earlier versions
Vulnerability
Malicious code may be executed in Content preview Feature.
Countermeasures
Update to the latest version of baserCMS
Please refer to the following page to reference for more information. https://basercms.net/security/JVN_45547161
Credits
Shiga Takuma@BroadBand Security, Inc
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| baserproject/basercms | < 4.8.0 |
4.8.0 |
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.
baserproject/basercms Packagist → 4.8.0
- composer
composer require baserproject/basercms:^4.8.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.0 4.7
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
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 [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
- Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
- Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
- Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
- Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
- Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
- Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-677c-xv24-crgx baserCMS is Vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting | Medium | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
| GHSA-c5c6-37vq-pjcq baserCMS Path Traversal Leads to Arbitrary File Write and RCE via Theme File API | High | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
| GHSA-6hpg-8rx3-cwgv baserCMS has OS command injection vulnerability in installer | Critical | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
| GHSA-jmq3-x8q7-j9qm baserCMS has a cross-site scripting vulnerability in blog posts | Medium | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
| GHSA-8cr7-r8qw-gp3c baserCMS has Mail Form Acceptance Bypass via Public API | Medium | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
| GHSA-m9g7-rgfc-jcm7 baserCMS Update Functionality Vulnerable to OS Command Injection | High | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
| GHSA-vh89-rjph-2g7p baserCMS has an SQL injection vulnerability in its blog post functionality | Critical | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
| GHSA-qxmc-6f24-g86g baserCMS has OS Command Injection Leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE) | High | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
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