Skip to content

GHSA-pm72-27mg-fc28 CVE-2023-0564

Froxlor contains Weak Password Requirements

High Packagist
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.46%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 39.52% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-521 Weak Password Requirements
Fix
2.0.10
Upgrade froxlor/froxlor to this version or later

Description

Weak Password Requirements in GitHub repository froxlor/froxlor prior to 2.0.10.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
froxlor/froxlor
< 2.0.10
2.0.10

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.

froxlor/froxlor Packagist → 2.0.10

composer
composer require froxlor/froxlor:^2.0.10

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-521: Weak Password Requirements

The product does not require that users should have strong passwords.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: A product's design should require adherance to an appropriate password policy. Specific password requirements depend strongly on contextual factors, but it is recommended to contain the following attributes: Enforcement of a minimum and maximum length Restrictions against password reuse Restrictions against using common passwords Restrictions against using contextual string in the password (e.g., user id, app name) Depending on the threat model, the password policy may include several additional attributes. Complex passwords requiring mixed character sets (alpha, numeric, special, mixed case) Increasing the range of characters makes the password harder to crack and may be appropriate for systems relying on single factor authentication. Unfortunately, a complex password may be difficult to memorize, encouraging a user to select a short password or to incorrectly manage the password (write it down). Another disadvantage of this approach is that it often does not result in a significant increases in overal password complexity due to people's predictable usage of various symbols. Large Minimum Length (encouraging passphrases instead of passwords) Increasing the number of characters makes the password harder to crack and may be appropriate for systems relying on single factor authentication. A disadvantage of this approach is that selecting a good passphrase is not easy and poor passwords can still be generated. Some prompting may be needed to encourage long un-predictable passwords. Randomly Chosen Secrets Generating a password for the user can help make sure that length and complexity requirements are met, and can result in secure passwords being used. A disadvantage of this approach is that the resulting password or passpharse may be too difficult to memorize, encouraging them to be written down. See NIST 800-63B [REF-1053] for further information on password requirements.
  • Architecture and Design: Consider a second authentication factor beyond the password, which prevents the password from being a single point of failure. See CWE-308 for further information.
  • Implementation: Consider implementing a password complexity meter to inform users when a chosen password meets the required attributes.
  • Implementation: Previously, "password expiration" was widely advocated as a defense-in-depth approach to minimize the risk of weak passwords, and it has become a common practice. Password expiration requires a password to be changed within a fixed time window (such as every 90 days). However, this approach has significant limitations in the current threat landscape, and its utility has been reduced in light of the adoption of related protection mechanisms (such as password complexity and computational effort), along with the recognition that regular password changes often caused users to generate more predictable passwords. As a result, this is now a Discouraged Common Practice [REF-1488] [REF-1489], especially as the sole factor in protecting passwords. It is still strongly encouraged to force password changes in case of evidence of compromise, but this is not the same as a forced "expiration" on an arbitrary time frame.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-7788-ghfq-c6mh
Froxlor: Credential and 2FA secret disclosure via Froxlor API endpoints
Critical Also affects froxlor/froxlor
GHSA-xpr4-8vp6-c87j
Froxlor has CSRF Vulnerability in AJAX Endpoint — Missing Cross-Site Request Forgery Protection
Medium Also affects froxlor/froxlor
GHSA-5rw4-4665-cvwf
Froxlor DomainZones.add allows DNS zone-file RR injection via record/type fields
Medium Also affects froxlor/froxlor
GHSA-w27m-rmmf-g5w4
Froxlor: Second-Order SQL Injection via `Admins.add` `ipaddress` Parameter Allows Full Database Exfiltration
High Also affects froxlor/froxlor
GHSA-43gm-9rr3-cx7g
Froxlor: Stored XSS in DNS TXT Record Content Allows Customer-to-Admin Account Takeover
High Also affects froxlor/froxlor
GHSA-q4rm-m6xh-5pv7
Froxlor customer can create MySQL databases on disallowed servers via Mysqls.add API
Medium Also affects froxlor/froxlor
GHSA-mr9h-45p9-fg8h
Froxlor: Authenticated customers can read other customers' allowed sender aliases
Medium Also affects froxlor/froxlor
GHSA-f9rx-7wf7-jr36
Froxlor's API Authentication bypasses 2FA Authentication
High Also affects froxlor/froxlor
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