Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

GHSA-j7vx-8mqj-cqp9 CVE-2020-10187

Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor in Doorkeeper

High RubyGems
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.78%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 78.27% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
5.0.3
Upgrade doorkeeper to this version or later

Description

Impact

Information disclosure vulnerability. Allows an attacker to see all Doorkeeper::Application model attribute values (including secrets) using authorized applications controller if it's enabled (GET /oauth/authorized_applications.json).

Patches

These versions have the fix:

  • 5.0.3
  • 5.1.1
  • 5.2.5
  • 5.3.2

Workarounds

Patch Doorkeeper::Application model #as_json(options = {}) method and define only those attributes you want to expose.

Additional recommended hardening is to enable application secrets hashing (guide), available since Doorkeeper 5.1. This would render the exposed secret useless.

References

Affected versions

RubyGems

PackageVulnerableFixed in
doorkeeper
>= 5.0.0, < 5.0.3
5.0.3
doorkeeper
>= 5.1.0, < 5.1.1
5.1.1
doorkeeper
>= 5.2.0, < 5.2.5
5.2.5
doorkeeper
>= 5.3.0, < 5.3.2
5.3.2

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.

doorkeeper RubyGems → 5.0.3

bundler
bundle update doorkeeper # Gemfile: gem "doorkeeper", ">= 5.0.3"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Weakness

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

Other links

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-7w2c-w47h-789w
Doorkeeper Improper Authentication vulnerability
Medium Also affects doorkeeper
GHSA-685w-vc84-wxcx
Doorkeeper vulnerable to Cross-site Request Forgery
Medium Also affects doorkeeper
GHSA-694m-jhr9-pf77
Doorkeeper subject to Incorrect Permission Assignment
High Also affects doorkeeper
GHSA-hwhh-2fwm-cfgw
Doorkeeper is vulnerable to stored XSS and code execution
Medium Also affects doorkeeper
GHSA-3m6r-39p3-jq25
Doorkeeper is vulnerable to replay attacks
Critical Also affects doorkeeper
GHSA-vp5q-ff62-jwqv
russh: Agent server never calls `Agent::confirm`, so keys added with the confirm constraint (`ssh-add -c`) sign without confirmation
High Same weakness, CWE-862
GHSA-98mx-cjp9-gchm
Electron: Extension tabs.query returns tab URLs and titles without the tabs permission
Low Same weakness, CWE-862
GHSA-vwwx-px9w-crrc
ApostropheCMS: Missing Authorization on Notification PATCH/DELETE Endpoints
Low Same weakness, CWE-862
Is this in your code?

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