Skip to content

GHSA-gv7g-x59x-wf8f CVE-2023-29008

SvelteKit framework has Insufficient CSRF protection for CORS requests

High npm
Severity
8.8 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.37%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 31.24% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Fix
1.15.2
Upgrade @sveltejs/kit to this version or later

Description

Summary

The SvelteKit framework offers developers an option to create simple REST APIs. This is done by defining a +server.js file, containing endpoint handlers for different HTTP methods.

SvelteKit provides out-of-the-box cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protection to its users. The protection is implemented at kit/src/runtime/server/respond.js. While the implementation does a sufficient job of mitigating common CSRF attacks, the protection can be bypassed by simply specifying an upper-cased Content-Type header value. The browser will not send uppercase characters on form submission, but this check does not block all expected cross-site requests: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CORS#simple_requests

Details

The CSRF protection is implemented using the code shown below.

		const forbidden =
			is_form_content_type(request) &&
			(request.method === 'POST' ||
				request.method === 'PUT' ||
				request.method === 'PATCH' ||
				request.method === 'DELETE') &&
			request.headers.get('origin') !== url.origin;

		if (forbidden) {
			const csrf_error = error(403, `Cross-site ${request.method} form submissions are forbidden`);
			if (request.headers.get('accept') === 'application/json') {
				return json(csrf_error.body, { status: csrf_error.status });
			}
			return text(csrf_error.body.message, { status: csrf_error.status });
		}

If the incoming request specifies a POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE method, the protection will compare the server’s origin with the value of the HTTP Origin header. A mismatch between these values signals that a potential attack has been detected. The final check is performed on the request’s Content-Type header whether the value is either application/x-www-form-urlencoded, multipart/form-data or text/plain. If all the previous checks pass, the request will be rejected with an 403 error response. However, is_form_content_type, which is responsible for checking the value of the Content-Type header, is not sufficient to mitigate all possible variations of this type of attack. Since this function is checking Content-Type with lower-cased values, and the browser accepts upper-cased Content-Type header to be sent, a CSRF attack performed with the Content-Type header that contains an upper-cased character (e.g., text/plaiN) can circumvent the protection and the request will be processed by the endpoint handler.

<!-- ### PoC 1. Set up the SvelteKit with `POST /api/test` endpoint. 2. Replace `REPLACE_DOMAIN` in the following HTML. ``` html <script> (async() => { await fetch("https://REPLACE_DOMAIN/api/test", {method: "POST", headers:{"Content-Type":"text/plaiN"}, body: "hello=world"}); })(); </script> ``` 3. Confirm that a POST request is processed by the server. -->

Impact

If abused, this issue will allow malicious requests to be submitted from third-party domains, which can allow execution of operations within the context of the victim's session, and in extreme scenarios can lead to unauthorized access to users’ accounts. This may lead to all POST operations requiring authentication being allowed in the following cases:

  1. If the target site sets SameSite=None on its auth cookie and the user visits a malicious site in a Chromium-based browser
  2. If the target site doesn't set the SameSite attribute explicitly and the user visits a malicious site with Firefox/Safari with tracking protections turned off.
  3. If the user is visiting a malicious site with a very outdated browser.

Remediations

It is preferred to update to SvelteKit 1.15.2. It is also recommended to explicitly set SameSite to a value other than None on authentication cookies especially if the upgrade cannot be done in a timely manner.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
@sveltejs/kit
< 1.15.2
1.15.2

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.

@sveltejs/kit npm → 1.15.2

npm
npm install @sveltejs/kit@1.15.2
yarn
yarn add @sveltejs/kit@1.15.2
pnpm
pnpm add @sveltejs/kit@1.15.2

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

How to prevent it
  • 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 [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
  • Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
  • Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
  • Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
  • Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
  • Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
  • Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.

CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-27mw-82g8-phjj
SvelteKit : XSS via untrusted cache-control header in prerendered page
Low Also affects @sveltejs/kit
GHSA-pfhg-q3qv-9q6r
SvelteKit: URL redirection to untrusted site via enhanced form submission
Medium Also affects @sveltejs/kit
GHSA-29g2-3rmr-qm68
SvelteKit: ReDoS (O(n^2)) in content negotiation — unauthenticated DoS via the Accept header
Medium Also affects @sveltejs/kit
GHSA-866w-xmhq-wj7x
SvelteKit: Prototype pollution in file input deletion path in remote-function forms
Medium Also affects @sveltejs/kit
GHSA-wqjv-9729-c5q2
SvelteKit: Big remote form function payloads can cause Node process to crash
Medium Also affects @sveltejs/kit
GHSA-hgv7-v322-mmgr
@sveltejs/kit: `query.batch` cross-talk
Medium Also affects @sveltejs/kit
GHSA-3f6h-2hrp-w5wx
@sveltejs/kit: Unvalidated redirect in handle hook causes Denial-of-Service
High Also affects @sveltejs/kit
GHSA-2crg-3p73-43xp
@sveltejs/adapter-node has a BODY_SIZE_LIMIT bypass
High Also affects @sveltejs/kit
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