GHSA-j584-j2vj-3f93 CVE-2024-37899
XWiki Platform allows remote code execution from user account
High
Maven
- Severity
- 9.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.69%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 52.98% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-266 Incorrect Privilege Assignment
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
14.10.21- Upgrade org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore to this version or later
Description
Impact
When an admin disables a user account, the user's profile is executed with the admin's rights. This allows a user to place malicious code in the user profile before getting an admin to disable the user account.
To reproduce, as a user without script nor programming rights, edit the about section of your user profile and add {{groovy}}services.logging.getLogger("attacker").error("Hello from Groovy!"){{/groovy}}.
As an admin, go to the user profile and click the "Disable this account" button.
Then, reload the page. If the logs show attacker - Hello from Groovy! then the instance is vulnerable.
Patches
This has been patched in XWiki 14.10.21, 15.5.5, 15.10.6 and 16.0.0.
Workarounds
We're not aware of any workaround except upgrading.
References
Affected versions
Maven
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore | >= 13.4.7, < 14.10.21 |
14.10.21 |
| org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore | >= 13.10.3, < 14.10.21 |
14.10.21 |
| org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore | >= 15.0-rc-1, < 15.5.5 |
15.5.5 |
| org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore | >= 15.6-rc-1, < 15.10.6 |
15.10.6 |
| org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore | >= 16.0.0-rc-1, < 16.0.0 |
16.0.0 |
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.
org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore Maven → 14.10.21
- maven
<dependency><groupId>org.xwiki.platform</groupId><artifactId>xwiki-platform-oldcore</artifactId><version>14.10.21</version></dependency>- gradle
implementation("org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-oldcore:14.10.21")
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.0
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-266: Incorrect Privilege Assignment
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular 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, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
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
- github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/security/advisories/GHSA-j584-j2vj-3f93
- github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/commit/046c36519a2df392c922c16d0d38472b98c414d0
- github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/commit/233b08b26580df4b7a595882dac65ed4e4a2419c
- github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/commit/2b55c29562ccd20f8f0f85075f0c95b4ee9cd9be
- github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/commit/f8409419c5d0ddefe1bee55e73629a54275fa735
- github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/commit/f89c8f47fad6e5cc7e68c69a7e0acde07f5eed5a
- jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-21611
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