GHSA-g7gf-2rqw-5rwx BIT-publify-2023-0569 CVE-2023-0569
Publify contains Weak Password Requirements
Medium
RubyGems
- Severity
- 6.5 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.70%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 53.20% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-521 Weak Password Requirements
- Fix
9.2.10- Upgrade publify_core to this version or later
Description
Weak Password Requirements in GitHub repository publify/publify prior to 9.2.10.
Affected versions
RubyGems
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| publify_core | < 9.2.10 |
9.2.10 |
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.
publify_core RubyGems → 9.2.10
- bundler
bundle update publify_core # Gemfile: gem "publify_core", ">= 9.2.10"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 6.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-521: Weak Password Requirements
The product does not require that users should have strong passwords.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: A product's design should require adherance to an appropriate password policy. Specific password requirements depend strongly on contextual factors, but it is recommended to contain the following attributes: Enforcement of a minimum and maximum length Restrictions against password reuse Restrictions against using common passwords Restrictions against using contextual string in the password (e.g., user id, app name) Depending on the threat model, the password policy may include several additional attributes. Complex passwords requiring mixed character sets (alpha, numeric, special, mixed case) Increasing the range of characters makes the password harder to crack and may be appropriate for systems relying on single factor authentication. Unfortunately, a complex password may be difficult to memorize, encouraging a user to select a short password or to incorrectly manage the password (write it down). Another disadvantage of this approach is that it often does not result in a significant increases in overal password complexity due to people's predictable usage of various symbols. Large Minimum Length (encouraging passphrases instead of passwords) Increasing the number of characters makes the password harder to crack and may be appropriate for systems relying on single factor authentication. A disadvantage of this approach is that selecting a good passphrase is not easy and poor passwords can still be generated. Some prompting may be needed to encourage long un-predictable passwords. Randomly Chosen Secrets Generating a password for the user can help make sure that length and complexity requirements are met, and can result in secure passwords being used. A disadvantage of this approach is that the resulting password or passpharse may be too difficult to memorize, encouraging them to be written down. See NIST 800-63B [REF-1053] for further information on password requirements.
- Architecture and Design: Consider a second authentication factor beyond the password, which prevents the password from being a single point of failure. See CWE-308 for further information.
- Implementation: Consider implementing a password complexity meter to inform users when a chosen password meets the required attributes.
- Implementation: Previously, "password expiration" was widely advocated as a defense-in-depth approach to minimize the risk of weak passwords, and it has become a common practice. Password expiration requires a password to be changed within a fixed time window (such as every 90 days). However, this approach has significant limitations in the current threat landscape, and its utility has been reduced in light of the adoption of related protection mechanisms (such as password complexity and computational effort), along with the recognition that regular password changes often caused users to generate more predictable passwords. As a result, this is now a Discouraged Common Practice [REF-1488] [REF-1489], especially as the sole factor in protecting passwords. It is still strongly encouraged to force password changes in case of evidence of compromise, but this is not the same as a forced "expiration" on an arbitrary time frame.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-8fm5-gg2f-f66q Publify Vulnerable To Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Via Redirects Requiring User Interaction | Medium | Also affects publify_core |
| GHSA-rc42-jghf-vr8f Integer overflow in publify_core | Critical | Also affects publify_core |
| GHSA-q3rm-f527-ghxj Publify Improper Input Validation vulnerability | Critical | Also affects publify_core |
| GHSA-79wq-g4v9-gfj4 Publify Core does not strip metadata from images | Medium | Also affects publify_core |
| GHSA-wmh9-x28j-c6gr Cross site scripting in publify | Medium | Also affects publify_core |
| GHSA-3h7v-wqw7-ff28 Cross site scripting in publify | Medium | Also affects publify_core |
| GHSA-c273-c6vg-4pv5 Publify has Improper Access Controls | Medium | Also affects publify_core |
| GHSA-3hwx-c6cp-q972 Publify vulnerable to cross site scripting | Critical | Also affects publify_core |
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