Skip to content

GHSA-p62j-hrxm-xcxf CVE-2022-51018

Book page text, count, and author/title length is not limited in PocketMine-MP

High Packagist
Severity
7.1 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.44%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 37.86% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
Fix
3.26.5
Upgrade pocketmine/pocketmine-mp to this version or later

Description

Impact

Players can fill book pages with as many characters as they like; the server does not check this. In addition, the maximum of 50 pages is also not enforced, meaning that players can create "book bombs".

This causes a variety of problems:

  • Oversized NBT on the wire costing excess bandwidth for server and client
  • Server crashes when saving region-based worlds due to exceeding maximum chunk size of 1 MB (PM3-specific)
  • Server crashes if any book page exceeds 32 KiB (due to TAG_String size limit) (PM4-specific)

This does, however, require that an attacker obtain a writable book in the first place in order to exploit the problem.

Patches

The bug has been fixed in 3.26.5 and 4.0.5.

Workarounds

Ban writable books, or use a plugin to cancel PlayerEditBookEvent to cancel the event if strlen(text) > 1024 || mb_strlen(text) > 256.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
pocketmine/pocketmine-mp
< 3.26.5
3.26.5
pocketmine/pocketmine-mp
>= 4.0.0, < 4.0.5
4.0.5

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.

pocketmine/pocketmine-mp Packagist → 3.26.5

composer
composer require pocketmine/pocketmine-mp:^3.26.5

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 7.1

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 6.5

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-pg53-p7qp-65cv
PocketMine-MP has potential memory/network vulnerability from repeated ResourcePackClientResponsePacket packets
Low Also affects pocketmine/pocketmine-mp
GHSA-xp4f-g2cm-rhg7
PocketMine-MP has LogDoS by many junk properties in client data JWT in LoginPacket
Medium Also affects pocketmine/pocketmine-mp
GHSA-f9jp-856v-8642
PocketMine-MP: Player entities can still die and drop items in flaggedForDespawn state
Medium Also affects pocketmine/pocketmine-mp
GHSA-7hmv-4j2j-pp6f
PocketMine-MP: Network amplification vulnerability with `ActorEventPacket`
Medium Also affects pocketmine/pocketmine-mp
GHSA-788v-5pfp-93ff
PocketMine-MP: JSON decoding of unlimited size large arrays/objects in ModalFormResponse Handling
Medium Also affects pocketmine/pocketmine-mp
GHSA-h6rj-3m53-887h
PocketMine-MP: LogDoS by large complex unknown property logging in clientData in LoginPacket
High Also affects pocketmine/pocketmine-mp
GHSA-fqqv-56h5-f57g
PocketMine-MP `ResourcePackDataInfoPacket` amplification vulnerability due to lack of resource pack sequence status checking
Medium Also affects pocketmine/pocketmine-mp
GHSA-g274-c6jj-h78p
PocketMine-MP allows malicious client data to waste server resources due to lack of limits for explode()
Medium Also affects pocketmine/pocketmine-mp
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