Skip to content

GHSA-qv64-w99c-qcr9 BIT-jenkins-2023-43497 CVE-2023-43497

Jenkins temporary uploaded file created with insecure permissions

High Maven
Severity
3.6 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.97%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 61.73% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-434 Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type
Fix
2.414.2
Upgrade org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core to this version or later

Description

In Jenkins 2.423 and earlier, LTS 2.414.1 and earlier, uploaded files processed via the Stapler web framework and the Jenkins API MultipartFormDataParser create temporary files in the system temporary directory with the default permissions for newly created files.

If these permissions are overly permissive, attackers with access to the system temporary directory may be able to read and write the file before it is used.

This vulnerability only affects operating systems using a shared temporary directory for all users (typically Linux). Additionally, the default permissions for newly created files generally only allow attackers to read the temporary file, but not write to it. Jenkins 2.424, LTS 2.414.2 creates the temporary files in a subdirectory with more restrictive permissions.

As a workaround, you can change your default temporary-file directory using the Java system property java.io.tmpdir, if you’re concerned about this issue but unable to immediately update Jenkins.

Affected versions

Maven

PackageVulnerableFixed in
org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
>= 2.50, < 2.414.2
2.414.2
org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
>= 2.415, < 2.424
2.424

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.

org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core Maven → 2.414.2

maven
<dependency><groupId>org.jenkins-ci.main</groupId><artifactId>jenkins-core</artifactId><version>2.414.2</version></dependency>
gradle
implementation("org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core:2.414.2")

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 3.6

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

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

Weakness

CWE-434: Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type

The product allows the upload or transfer of dangerous file types that are automatically processed within its environment.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Generate a new, unique filename for an uploaded file instead of using the user-supplied filename, so that no external input is used at all.[REF-422] [REF-423]
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
  • Architecture and Design: Consider storing the uploaded files outside of the web document root entirely. Then, use other mechanisms to deliver the files dynamically. [REF-423]
  • 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. For example, limiting filenames to alphanumeric characters can help to restrict the introduction of unintended file extensions.
  • Architecture and Design: Define a very limited set of allowable extensions and only generate filenames that end in these extensions. Consider the possibility of XSS (CWE-79) before allowing .html or .htm file types.
  • Implementation: Ensure that only one extension is used in the filename. Some web servers, including some versions of Apache, may process files based on inner extensions so that "filename.php.gif" is fed to the PHP interpreter.[REF-422] [REF-423]
  • Implementation: When running on a web server that supports case-insensitive filenames, perform case-insensitive evaluations of the extensions that are provided.
  • 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.
  • Implementation: Do not rely exclusively on sanity checks of file contents to ensure that the file is of the expected type and size. It may be possible for an attacker to hide code in some file segments that will still be executed by the server. For example, GIF images may contain a free-form comments field.
  • Implementation: Do not rely exclusively on the MIME content type or filename attribute when determining how to render a file. Validating the MIME content type and ensuring that it matches the extension is only a partial solution.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-6f9g-cxwr-q5jr
Arbitrary file read vulnerability through the Jenkins CLI can lead to RCE
Critical Known exploited Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
GHSA-8pqx-3rxx-f5pm
Jenkins discloses project names via fingerprints
High Known exploited Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
GHSA-26wc-3wqp-g3rp
Deserialization of Untrusted Data in Jenkins
Critical Known exploited Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
CVE-2018-1000861
Deserialization of Untrusted Data in Jenkins
Critical Known exploited Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
GHSA-m6wv-wh8g-64xc
Jenkins does not encrypt secrets from POST config.xml submissions before storing them in job configurations
Medium Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
GHSA-93qh-vwrm-c5pw
Jenkins: Stored XSS vulnerability in node offline cause description
Medium Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
GHSA-92m7-4fpw-2wxm
Jenkins: Open Redirect phishing attacks possible via "from" parameter in "Delegate to servlet container"
Medium Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
GHSA-g28p-6mcc-v4rv
Jenkins exposes other users' timezone and view names to users with Overall/Read permission
Medium Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
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