GHSA-hxx2-7vcw-mqr3 CVE-2024-21510
Sinatra vulnerable to Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision
Medium
RubyGems
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.49%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 42.39% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-807 Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision
- Fix
4.1.0- Upgrade sinatra to this version or later
Description
Versions of the package sinatra from 0.0.0 are vulnerable to Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision via the X-Forwarded-Host (XFH) header. When making a request to a method with redirect applied, it is possible to trigger an Open Redirect Attack by inserting an arbitrary address into this header. If used for caching purposes, such as with servers like Nginx, or as a reverse proxy, without handling the X-Forwarded-Host header, attackers can potentially exploit Cache Poisoning or Routing-based SSRF.
Affected versions
RubyGems
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| sinatra | < 4.1.0 |
4.1.0 |
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.
sinatra RubyGems → 4.1.0
- bundler
bundle update sinatra # Gemfile: gem "sinatra", ">= 4.1.0"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Passive
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 5.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-807: Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision
The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Store state information and sensitive data on the server side only. Ensure that the system definitively and unambiguously keeps track of its own state and user state and has rules defined for legitimate state transitions. Do not allow any application user to affect state directly in any way other than through legitimate actions leading to state transitions. If information must be stored on the client, do not do so without encryption and integrity checking, or otherwise having a mechanism on the server side to catch tampering. Use a message authentication code (MAC) algorithm, such as Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC) [REF-529]. Apply this against the state or sensitive data that has to be exposed, which can guarantee the integrity of the data - i.e., that the data has not been modified. Ensure that a strong hash function is used (CWE-328).
- 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. With a stateless protocol such as HTTP, use a framework that maintains the state for you. Examples include ASP.NET View State [REF-756] and the OWASP ESAPI Session Management feature [REF-45]. Be careful of language features that provide state support, since these might be provided as a convenience to the programmer and may not be considering security.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls. Identify all inputs that are used for security decisions and determine if you can modify the design so that you do not have to rely on submitted inputs at all. For example, you may be able to keep critical information about the user's session on the server side instead of recording it within external data.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/sinatra/sinatra/pull/2010
- github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/sinatra/CVE-2024-21510.yml
- github.com/sinatra/sinatra/blob/b626e2d82c23b4fde0b51782fd32ca27ccde1d1a/lib/si…
- github.com/sinatra/sinatra/blob/b626e2d82c23b4fde0b51782fd32ca27ccde1d1a/lib/si…
- github.com/sinatra/sinatra/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md
- security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-RUBY-SINATRA-6483832
- github.com/sinatra/sinatra/blob/b626e2d82c23b4fde0b51782fd32ca27ccde1d1a/lib/si…
- github.com/sinatra/sinatra/blob/b626e2d82c23b4fde0b51782fd32ca27ccde1d1a/lib/si…
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-mr3q-g2mv-mr4q Sinatra is vulnerable to ReDoS through ETag header value generation | High | Also affects sinatra |
| GHSA-2x8x-jmrp-phxw Sinatra vulnerable to Reflected File Download attack | High | Also affects sinatra |
| GHSA-qp49-3pvw-x4m5 sinatra does not validate expanded path matches | High | Also affects sinatra |
| GHSA-mq35-wqvf-r23c Sinatra Cross-site Scripting vulnerability | Medium | Also affects sinatra |
| GHSA-h29f-7f56-j8wh Sinatra Path Traversal vulnerability | Medium | Also affects sinatra |
| GHSA-f9xw-jh8m-3mwq AIOHTTP: Absolute-form request targets can spoof Request.scheme | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-807 |
| GHSA-238p-pmpm-9mq7 KaTeX: Existing prototype pollution can bypass trust restrictions | Low | Same weakness, CWE-807 |
| GHSA-32gc-64m7-hj7v 9Router has a Login Brute-Force Lockout Bypass via Spoofable X-9r-Real-Ip Header | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-807 |
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