Skip to content

GHSA-p9cx-f595-h79h BIT-moodle-2024-43438 CVE-2024-43438

Moodle's IDOR in Feedback non-respondents report allows messaging arbitrary site users

High Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.53%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 44.60% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
4.1.12
Upgrade moodle/moodle to this version or later

Description

A flaw was found in Feedback. Bulk messaging in the activity's non-respondents report did not verify message recipients belonging to the set of users returned by the report.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
moodle/moodle
< 4.1.12
4.1.12
moodle/moodle
>= 4.2.0-beta, < 4.2.9
4.2.9
moodle/moodle
>= 4.3.0-beta, < 4.3.6
4.3.6
moodle/moodle
>= 4.4.0-beta, < 4.4.2
4.4.2

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.

moodle/moodle Packagist → 4.1.12

composer
composer require moodle/moodle:^4.1.12

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

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-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
  • Architecture and Design: Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

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-cg8j-5cr2-568q
Moodle TeX formula editor is vulnerable to DoS through lack of execution time limits
Medium Also affects moodle/moodle
GHSA-ggxq-2mg9-8966
Moodle has a Remote Code Execution risk via file restore
High Also affects moodle/moodle
GHSA-8jrv-wx83-w3xj
Moodle Inserts Sensitive Information Into Sent Data
Medium Also affects moodle/moodle
GHSA-hcm6-q6pc-xfhm
Moodle has an authorization logic flaw
Critical Also affects moodle/moodle
GHSA-vwhw-vp9v-q9c9
Moodle vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting
Medium Also affects moodle/moodle
GHSA-5cx4-w4fh-fr57
Moodle Affected by Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts
High Also affects moodle/moodle
GHSA-qv78-6gpp-hm68
Moodle Open Redirect vulnerability
Medium Also affects moodle/moodle
GHSA-qfh6-h7j6-fvjv
Moodle formula injection vulnerability
High Also affects moodle/moodle
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