GHSA-gv2w-88hx-8m9r CVE-2020-1745
Improper Authorization in Undertoe
- Severity
- 8.6 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 4.96%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 92.18% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-285 Improper Authorization
- Fix
2.0.30- Upgrade io.undertow:undertow-core to this version or later
Description
A file inclusion vulnerability was found in the AJP connector enabled with a default AJP configuration port of 8009 in Undertow version 2.0.29.Final and before and was fixed in 2.0.30.Final. A remote, unauthenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability to read web application files from a vulnerable server. In instances where the vulnerable server allows file uploads, an attacker could upload malicious JavaServer Pages (JSP) code within a variety of file types and trigger this vulnerability to gain remote code execution.
Affected versions
Maven
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| io.undertow:undertow-core | < 2.0.30 |
2.0.30 |
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.
io.undertow:undertow-core Maven → 2.0.30
- maven
<dependency><groupId>io.undertow</groupId><artifactId>undertow-core</artifactId><version>2.0.30</version></dependency>- gradle
implementation("io.undertow:undertow-core:2.0.30")
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.0 8.6
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-285: Improper Authorization
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
- 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. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
References
Advisories
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-3x3v-w654-m28m Undertow: Denial of Service via Multipart/Form-Data Parsing on HTTP GET Requests | Medium | Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core |
| GHSA-33hj-rcmx-86mv Undertow Servlets Vulnerable to Remote DoS via OutOfMemoryError when Passed Large Parameter Names | High | Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core |
| GHSA-j382-5jj3-vw4j Undertow HTTP server core doesn't properly validate the Host header in incoming HTTP requests | Critical | Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core |
| GHSA-6h4f-pj3g-q8fq Undertow OutOfMemory when parsing form data encoding with application/x-www-form-urlencoded | High | Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core |
| GHSA-95h4-w6j8-2rp8 Undertow MadeYouReset HTTP/2 DDoS Vulnerability | High | Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core |
| GHSA-3jrv-jgp8-45v3 Undertow incorrectly parses cookies | High | Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core |
| GHSA-97cq-f4jm-mv8h Undertow Denial of Service vulnerability | High | Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core |
| GHSA-9623-mqmm-5rcf Undertow vulnerable to Race Condition | High | Also affects io.undertow:undertow-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