Skip to content

GHSA-jhxw-4hw4-mhh7 CVE-2008-6548 PYSEC-2009-11

MoinMoin improper access control on the included page for the rst parser

Medium PyPI
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.00%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 62.94% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
1.6.2
Upgrade moin to this version or later

Description

The rst parser (parser/text_rst.py) in MoinMoin 1.6.1 does not check the ACL of an included page, which allows attackers to read unauthorized include files via unknown vectors.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
moin
< 1.6.2
1.6.2
moin
all versions
No fix yet

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.

moin PyPI → 1.6.2

pip
pip install --upgrade "moin>=1.6.2"
poetry
poetry add "moin>=1.6.2"
uv
uv add "moin>=1.6.2"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
Low
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 5.3

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

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-cx94-3h5x-cc57
MoinMoin Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the antispam feature
Medium Also affects moin
GHSA-7hjm-hqgj-xv9f
MoinMoin Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities
Medium Also affects moin
GHSA-jj2f-57jg-5rm6
MoinMoin Improper Access Control
Medium Also affects moin
GHSA-8fj9-pj4p-4vq7
MoinMoin Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities
Medium Also affects moin
GHSA-6766-r2rx-mfw9
MoinMoin Directory traversal vulnerability
Medium Also affects moin
GHSA-775g-4482-pm94
MoinMoin Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities
Medium Also affects moin
GHSA-53wj-6m7w-j6mj
MoinMoin Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability
Medium Also affects moin
GHSA-cmg7-xr2j-4r9v
MoinMoin Improper ACL handling for calendars and includes
Medium Also affects moin
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