GHSA-hgpw-6p4h-j6h5 CVE-2023-46242
XWiki Platform vulnerable to remote code execution via the edit action because it lacks CSRF token
High
Maven
- Severity
- 9.6 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.38%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 32.16% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
14.10.7- Upgrade org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore to this version or later
Description
Impact
In XWiki Platform, it's possible to execute content with the right of any user if you can make this user follow a crafted URL. This is possible because edit action sets and thereby executes the page content without checking for a cross-site request forgert (CSRF) token.
To reproduce:
Get a user with programming rights to visit the URL <xwiki-host>/xwiki/bin/edit/Main/?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. This can be done by embedding an image with this URL.
The text "Hello from Groovy!" is displayed in the page content, showing that the Groovy macro has been executed.
Patches
This has been patched in XWiki 14.10.7 and 15.2-RC-1.
Workarounds
There are no known workarounds for it.
References
- https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-20386
- https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/commit/cf8eb861998ea423c3645d2e5e974420b0e882be
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:
- Open an issue in Jira XWiki.org
- Email us at Security Mailing List
Affected versions
Maven
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore | >= 1.0, < 14.10.7 |
14.10.7 |
| org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore | >= 15.0, < 15.2-rc-1 |
15.2-rc-1 |
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 → 14.10.7
- maven
<dependency><groupId>org.xwiki.platform</groupId><artifactId>xwiki-platform-oldcore</artifactId><version>14.10.7</version></dependency>- gradle
implementation("org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore:14.10.7")
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.6
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- 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-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-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 |
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