GHSA-j57w-3c39-gpp5 CVE-2022-0611
Improper Privilege Management in Snipe-IT
High
Packagist
- Severity
- 8.8 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.20%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 68.19% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
5.3.11- Upgrade snipe/snipe-it to this version or later
Description
An unprivileged user of Snipe-IT prior to version 5.3.11 can create maintenance for an asset. Version 5.3.11 contains a patch for this issue.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| snipe/snipe-it | < 5.3.11 |
5.3.11 |
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.
snipe/snipe-it Packagist → 5.3.11
- composer
composer require snipe/snipe-it:^5.3.11
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
- Architecture and Design: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
- Architecture and Design: Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
CWE-862: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform 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) [REF-229] 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 access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied 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 [REF-7].
- 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
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-396x-xmvh-p563 Snipe-IT: Stored XSS via Inline XML Rendering in the Uploaded Files API | Medium | Also affects snipe/snipe-it |
| GHSA-p9h3-gvpq-5539 Snipe-IT: Stored XSS via Custom Field name in asset-list column headers | High | Also affects snipe/snipe-it |
| GHSA-hxcx-9h4f-42xx Snipe-IT: 2FA bypass via the API token flow | High | Also affects snipe/snipe-it |
| GHSA-c8qc-wf67-342w Snipe-IT: Stored DOM XSS via table selected-count IDs | Medium | Also affects snipe/snipe-it |
| GHSA-r9r3-g9fp-3q4q Snipe-IT: Maintenance Record Disclosure via Missing Authorization on GET | Medium | Also affects snipe/snipe-it |
| GHSA-3hgv-jr5j-cg9x Snipe-IT: Chained Information Disclosure and IDOR Leads to Full EULA File Takeover | Medium | Also affects snipe/snipe-it |
| GHSA-c6w2-j4wq-mvwg Snipe-IT: Tenant Isolation Bypass in FMCS Floater Mode | High | Also affects snipe/snipe-it |
| GHSA-35cr-9hqq-p2mg Snipe-IT: Cross-company deletion of pending checkout acceptances via unscoped report endpoint | Medium | Also affects snipe/snipe-it |
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