Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

GHSA-g2qq-c5j9-5w5w CVE-2023-46243

XWiki Platform vulnerable to privilege escalation and remote code execution via the edit action

High Maven
Severity
8.8 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.98%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 62.37% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix
15.2-rc-1
Upgrade org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore to this version or later

Description

Impact

In XWiki Platform, it's possible for a user to execute any content with the right of an existing document's content author, provided the user have edit right on it. The reason for this is that the edit action sets the content without modifying the content author.

To reproduce:

  • Log in as a user without programming or script right.
  • Open the URL <xwiki-host>/xwiki/bin/edit/<document>/?content=%7B%7Bgroovy%7D%7Dprintln%28%22Hello+from+Groovy%21%22%29%7B%7B%2Fgroovy%7D%7D&xpage=view, where <xwiki-host> is the URL of your XWiki installation and <document> is the path to a document whose content author has programming right (or script right) and on which the current user has edit right.

The text "Hello from Groovy!" is displayed in the page content, showing that the Groovy macro has been executed, which should not be the case for a user without programming right.

Patches

This has been patched in XWiki 14.10.6 and 15.2RC1.

Workarounds

There are no known workarounds for it.

References

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

Affected versions

Maven

PackageVulnerableFixed in
org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore
>= 15.0, < 15.2-rc-1
15.2-rc-1
org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore
>= 1.0, < 14.10.6
14.10.6

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.

org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore Maven → 15.2-rc-1

maven
<dependency><groupId>org.xwiki.platform</groupId><artifactId>xwiki-platform-oldcore</artifactId><version>15.2-rc-1</version></dependency>
gradle
implementation("org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore:15.2-rc-1")

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.8

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

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

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-qj4x-9g63-25g6
XWiki Platform Old Core: Resource path traversal via /skin/ action endpoint in Jetty 12+
High Also affects org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore
GHSA-mrqg-xmgm-rc5g
XWiki's REST APIs can list all pages/spaces, leading to unavailability
High Also affects org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore
GHSA-h259-74h5-4rh9
XWiki vulnerable to remote code execution with script right through unprotected Velocity scripting API
Critical Also affects org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore
GHSA-57q2-6cp4-9mq3
XWiki exposes passwords and emails stored in fields not named password/email in xml.vm
Medium Also affects org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore
GHSA-r38m-cgpg-qj69
XWiki leaks password hashes and other accessible password properties
Medium Also affects org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore
GHSA-p9qm-p942-q3w5
XWiki Platform vulnerable to SQL injection through XWiki#searchDocuments API
Critical Also affects org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore
GHSA-jp4x-w9cj-97q7
XWiki allows remote code execution through preview of XClass changes in AWM editor
High Also affects org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore
GHSA-prwh-7838-xf82
XWiki allows SQL injection in query endpoint of REST API with Oracle
Critical Also affects org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore
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