Skip to content

GHSA-m63j-wh5w-c252 CVE-2019-5419

Denial of Service Vulnerability in Action View

High RubyGems
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
8.78%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 95.17% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
4.2.11.1
Upgrade actionview to this version or later

Description

Denial of Service Vulnerability in Action View

Impact

Specially crafted accept headers can cause the Action View template location code to consume 100% CPU, causing the server unable to process requests. This impacts all Rails applications that render views.

All users running an affected release should either upgrade or use one of the workarounds immediately.

Releases

The 6.0.0.beta3, 5.2.2.1, 5.1.6.2, 5.0.7.2, and 4.2.11.1 releases are available at the normal locations.

Workarounds

This vulnerability can be mitigated by wrapping render calls with respond_to blocks. For example, the following example is vulnerable:

class UserController < ApplicationController 
  def index 
    render "index" 
  end 
end 

But the following code is not vulnerable:

class UserController < ApplicationController 
  def index 
    respond_to |format| 
      format.html { render "index" } 
    end 
  end 
end 

Implicit rendering is impacted, so this code is vulnerable:

class UserController < ApplicationController 
  def index 
  end 
end 

But can be changed this this:

class UserController < ApplicationController 
  def index 
    respond_to |format| 
      format.html { render "index" } 
    end 
  end 
end 

Alternatively to specifying the format, the following monkey patch can be applied in an initializer:

$ cat config/initializers/formats_filter.rb 
# frozen_string_literal: true 

ActionDispatch::Request.prepend(Module.new do 
  def formats 
    super().select do |format| 
      format.symbol || format.ref == "*/*" 
    end 
  end 
end) 

Please note that only the 5.2.x, 5.1.x, 5.0.x, and 4.2.x series are supported at present. Users of earlier unsupported releases are advised to upgrade as soon as possible as we cannot guarantee the continued availability of security fixes for unsupported releases.

Also note that the patches for this vulnerability are the same as CVE-2019-5418.

Credits

Thanks to John Hawthorn john@hawthorn.email of GitHub

Affected versions

RubyGems

PackageVulnerableFixed in
actionview
>= 4.0.0, < 4.2.11.1
4.2.11.1
actionview
>= 5.2.0, < 5.2.2.1
5.2.2.1
actionview
>= 5.1.0, < 5.1.6.2
5.1.6.2
actionview
>= 5.0.0, < 5.0.7.2
5.0.7.2
actionview
>= 6.0.0.beta1, < 6.0.0.beta3
6.0.0.beta3

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.

actionview RubyGems → 4.2.11.1

bundler
bundle update actionview # Gemfile: gem "actionview", ">= 4.2.11.1"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
  • Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • 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.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
  • Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
CVE-2019-5418
Path Traversal in Action View
High Known exploited Also affects actionview
GHSA-xrr4-p6fq-hjg7
Directory traversal vulnerability in Action View in Ruby on Rails
High Known exploited Also affects actionview
GHSA-v55j-83pf-r9cq
Rails has a possible XSS vulnerability in its Action View tag helpers
Low Also affects actionview
GHSA-xp5h-f8jf-rc8q
rails-ujs vulnerable to DOM Based Cross-site Scripting contenteditable HTML Elements
Medium Also affects actionview
GHSA-ch3h-j2vf-95pv
XSS Vulnerability in Action View tag helpers
Medium Also affects actionview
GHSA-cfjv-5498-mph5
XSS in Action View
Medium Also affects actionview
GHSA-cr3x-7m39-c6jq
Remote code execution via user-provided local names in ActionView
High Also affects actionview
GHSA-xq5j-gw7f-jgj8
CSRF Vulnerability in rails-ujs
Medium Also affects actionview
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