GHSA-j6w9-fv6q-3q52 CVE-2020-8184
Rack allows Percent-encoded cookies to overwrite existing prefixed cookie names
High
RubyGems
- Severity
- 7.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 2.94%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 87.11% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
- CWE-784 Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking in a Security Decision
- Fix
2.1.4- Upgrade rack to this version or later
Description
A reliance on cookies without validation/integrity check security vulnerability exists in rack < 2.2.3, rack < 2.1.4 that makes it possible for an attacker to forge a secure or host-only cookie prefix.
Affected versions
RubyGems
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.
rack RubyGems → 2.1.4
- bundler
bundle update rack # Gemfile: gem "rack", ">= 2.1.4"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
- Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: 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.
- 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.
- 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. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
- Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
- Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
- Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
CWE-784: Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking in a Security Decision
The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of a cookie, but it does not properly ensure that the cookie is valid for the associated user.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Avoid using cookie data for a security-related decision.
- Implementation: Perform thorough input validation (i.e.: server side validation) on the cookie data if you're going to use it for a security related decision.
- Architecture and Design: Add integrity checks to detect tampering.
- Architecture and Design: Protect critical cookies from replay attacks, since cross-site scripting or other attacks may allow attackers to steal a strongly-encrypted cookie that also passes integrity checks. This mitigation applies to cookies that should only be valid during a single transaction or session. By enforcing timeouts, you may limit the scope of an attack. As part of your integrity check, use an unpredictable, server-side value that is not exposed to the client.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/rack/rack/commit/1f5763de6a9fe515ff84992b343d63c88104654c
- hackerone.com/reports/895727
- github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/rack/CVE-2020-8184.yml
- groups.google.com/g/rubyonrails-security/c/OWtmozPH9Ak
- lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2020/07/msg00006.html
- lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2023/01/msg00038.html
- usn.ubuntu.com/4561-1
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-g2pf-xv49-m2h5 Rack::Request accepts invalid Host characters, enabling host allowlist bypass | Medium | Also affects rack |
| GHSA-v6x5-cg8r-vv6x Rack's multipart header parsing allows Denial of Service via escape-heavy quoted parameters | High | Also affects rack |
| GHSA-qfgr-crr9-7r49 Rack: Forwarded Header semicolon injection enables Host and Scheme spoofing | Medium | Also affects rack |
| GHSA-rx22-g9mx-qrhv Rack's improper unfolding of folded multipart headers preserves CRLF in parsed parameter values | Medium | Also affects rack |
| GHSA-q2ww-5357-x388 Rack has Content-Length mismatch in Rack::Files error responses | Medium | Also affects rack |
| GHSA-qv7j-4883-hwh7 Rack::Sendfile header-based X-Accel-Mapping regex injection enables unauthorized X-Accel-Redirect | High | Also affects rack |
| GHSA-8vqr-qjwx-82mw Rack's multipart parsing without Content-Length header allows unbounded chunked file uploads | High | Also affects rack |
| GHSA-x8cg-fq8g-mxfx Rack's multipart byte range processing allows denial of service via excessive overlapping ranges | High | Also affects rack |
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