GHSA-gc34-5v43-h7v8 CVE-2023-3224
nuxt Code Injection vulnerability
Critical
npm
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 58.65%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.10% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
3.4.3- Upgrade nuxt to this version or later
Description
he Nuxt dev server between versions 3.4.0 and 3.4.3 is vulnerable to code injection when it is exposed publicly.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| nuxt | >= 3.4.0, < 3.4.3 |
3.4.3 |
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.
nuxt npm → 3.4.3
- npm
npm install nuxt@3.4.3- yarn
yarn add nuxt@3.4.3- pnpm
pnpm add nuxt@3.4.3
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.0 8.1
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- 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
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-9v7c-q64q-vv33 Nuxt: Dot segments in the request path bypass `server/middleware` path checks and server route rules on page routes | Medium | Also affects nuxt |
| GHSA-xfq5-w38q-pc2x Nuxt server islands render `useHeadSafe` input without sanitisation | Medium | Also affects nuxt |
| GHSA-vjh5-4x84-xrqp Nuxt: Server-side route rules (`redirect`, `headers`, `proxy`, `ssr`) are skipped for case-variant paths when routing is case-insensitive | Medium | Also affects nuxt |
| GHSA-6gq8-jgmh-3ffp Nuxt: Route rules are matched against the raw request path, so a percent-encoded segment can bypass `appMiddleware` on dynamic and catch-all routes | Medium | Also affects nuxt |
| GHSA-jjm6-p2m9-9w4x Nuxt: Incomplete fix for GHSA-934w-87qh-qr26: a `javascript:` URL prefixed with an ASCII control character executes from `<NuxtLink>` when `pages` is disabled | Low | Also affects nuxt |
| GHSA-7c4v-fwgw-9rf7 Nuxt dev server discloses project root and workspace UUID via the Chrome DevTools workspace endpoint | Medium | Also affects nuxt |
| GHSA-9pgf-384g-p7mv Nuxt: Unauthenticated CPU exhaustion parsing and hashing the Nuxt island endpoint body before hash validation | High | Also affects nuxt |
| GHSA-9473-5f9j-94wq Nuxt: Server-Side Remote Code Execution via Runtime Template Injection in Nuxt Server Island Props | High | Also affects nuxt |
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