Skip to content

GHSA-pf38-v6qj-j23h CVE-2022-24879

Malfunction of CSRF token validation in Shopware

High Packagist
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.60%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 48.97% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Fix
5.7.9
Upgrade shopware/shopware to this version or later

Description

Impact

The CSRF tokens were not renewed after login and logout. An attacker could impersonate the victim if the attacker is able to use the same device as the victim used beforehand.

Patches

We recommend updating to the current version 5.7.9. You can get the update to 5.7.9 regularly via the Auto-Updater or directly via the download overview. https://www.shopware.com/en/changelog-sw5/#5-7-9

For older versions you can use the Security Plugin: https://store.shopware.com/en/swag575294366635f/shopware-security-plugin.html

References

https://docs.shopware.com/en/shopware-5-en/security-updates/security-update-04-2022

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
shopware/shopware
>= 5.2.0, < 5.7.9
5.7.9

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.

shopware/shopware Packagist → 5.7.9

composer
composer require shopware/shopware:^5.7.9

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

How to prevent it
  • 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 [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
  • Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
  • Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
  • Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
  • Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
  • Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
  • Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-7cw6-7h3h-v8pf
Shopware Has Improper Control of Generation of Code in Twig rendered views
High Also affects shopware/shopware
GHSA-6w82-v552-wjw2
Shopware Storefront Reflected XSS in Storefront Login Page
Medium Also affects shopware/shopware
GHSA-9v82-vcjx-m76j
Shopware: Reflective Cross Site-Scripting (XSS) in CMS components
High Also affects shopware/shopware
GHSA-83jv-4prm-34g7
Shopware Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Critical Also affects shopware/shopware
GHSA-7336-ghhp-f2qj
Shopware Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Critical Also affects shopware/shopware
GHSA-jqr7-5h7r-ch8p
Shopware Non-Persistent XSS in the Frontend
Medium Also affects shopware/shopware
GHSA-q3g4-2vw9-xv27
Shopware Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Critical Also affects shopware/shopware
GHSA-gh66-fp7j-98v5
Shopware improper mail validation vulnerability
Medium Also affects shopware/shopware
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