GHSA-p75c-5x3h-cxcg CVE-2022-39281
Fat Free CRM vulnerable to Remote Denial of Service via Tasks endpoint
Medium
RubyGems
- Severity
- 6.5 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.78%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 78.29% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
- Fix
0.20.1- Upgrade fat_free_crm to this version or later
Description
Impact
An authenticated user can perform a remote Denial of Service attack against Fat Free CRM.
This vulnerability has been assigned the CVE identifier: CVE-2022-39281
Affected versions: All Not affected: None Fixed versions: 0.20.1
All users running an affected release should either upgrade or apply the patch immediately.
Releases
Fixed versions: 0.20.1 and above
Patches
If you are unable to upgrade immediately, you should apply the following patch.
diff --git a/app/models/polymorphic/task.rb b/app/models/polymorphic/task.rb
index d3d5c32c..7cdb24d6 100644
--- a/app/models/polymorphic/task.rb
+++ b/app/models/polymorphic/task.rb
@@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
#----------------------------------------------------------------------------
def self.bucket_empty?(bucket, user, view = "pending")
return false if bucket.blank? || !ALLOWED_VIEWS.include?(view)
+ return false unless Setting.task_bucket.map(&:to_s).include?(bucket.to_s)
if view == "assigned"
assigned_by(user).send(bucket).pending.count
Credits
Thanks to @p- for reporting this and working with us to responsibly disclose this vulnerability.
Further information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please Open an issue in GitHub Issue Tracker
Affected versions
RubyGems
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| fat_free_crm | < 0.20.1 |
0.20.1 |
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.
fat_free_crm RubyGems → 0.20.1
- bundler
bundle update fat_free_crm # Gemfile: gem "fat_free_crm", ">= 0.20.1"
Severity breakdown
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-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.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-9pm8-vwc5-w2hm Fat Free CRM has BOLA in DELETE /emails/:id - Any authenticated user can hit this endpoint and delete emails by ID | Low | Also affects fat_free_crm |
| GHSA-mcvq-7xjq-46x6 Fat Free CRM contains Cross-site Request Forgery vulnerablilities | Medium | Also affects fat_free_crm |
| GHSA-f25h-3mj6-4jpg Fat Free CRM vulnerable to Exposure of Sensitive Information | Medium | Also affects fat_free_crm |
| GHSA-g897-cgfc-7q8v Fat Free CRM has fixed token value | Medium | Also affects fat_free_crm |
| GHSA-9ggp-5rf4-x7q9 Fat Free CRM vulnerable to SQL Injection | Medium | Also affects fat_free_crm |
| GHSA-4xq9-vw89-p5cx Fat Free CRM allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via a direct request | Medium | Also affects fat_free_crm |
| GHSA-wcfx-3m6v-4frg Fat Free CRM subject to Cross-site Scripting | Medium | Also affects fat_free_crm |
| GHSA-wx7c-8j35-mpg8 Fat Free CRM Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability | Medium | Also affects fat_free_crm |
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