Skip to content

GHSA-r4v8-9hgx-vm6m CVE-2018-11047

Cloud Foundry UAA accepts refresh token as access token on admin endpoints

High Maven
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.07%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 64.78% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
4.5.7
Upgrade org.cloudfoundry.identity:cloudfoundry-identity-server to this version or later

Description

Cloud Foundry UAA, versions 4.19 prior to 4.19.2 and 4.12 prior to 4.12.4 and 4.10 prior to 4.10.2 and 4.7 prior to 4.7.6 and 4.5 prior to 4.5.7, incorrectly authorizes requests to admin endpoints by accepting a valid refresh token in lieu of an access token. Refresh tokens by design have a longer expiration time than access tokens, allowing the possessor of a refresh token to authenticate longer than expected. This affects the administrative endpoints of the UAA. i.e. /Users, /Groups, etc. However, if the user has been deleted or had groups removed, or the client was deleted, the refresh token will no longer be valid.

Affected versions

Maven

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.cloudfoundry.identity:cloudfoundry-identity-server Maven → 4.5.7

maven
<dependency><groupId>org.cloudfoundry.identity</groupId><artifactId>cloudfoundry-identity-server</artifactId><version>4.5.7</version></dependency>
gradle
implementation("org.cloudfoundry.identity:cloudfoundry-identity-server:4.5.7")

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.0 7.5

CVSS:3.0/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-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-6wcw-r64p-qrrw
Cloudfoundry UAA has logic error in the token revocation endpoint implementation
Medium Also affects org.cloudfoundry.identity:cloudfoundry-identity-server
GHSA-xg5v-696h-c3vr
Cloud Foundry UAA SessionID present in Audit Event Logs
High Also affects org.cloudfoundry.identity:cloudfoundry-identity-server
GHSA-xh4m-99qp-w483
Cloud Foundry UAA open redirect
Medium Also affects org.cloudfoundry.identity:cloudfoundry-identity-server
GHSA-rc2r-w8jv-vggp
Cloud Foundry vulnerable to Improper Certificate Validation
Medium Also affects org.cloudfoundry.identity:cloudfoundry-identity-server
GHSA-292x-hjr8-226f
Cloud Foundry UAA Privilege Escalation
High Also affects org.cloudfoundry.identity:cloudfoundry-identity-server
GHSA-j97q-9xp9-g5fx
Pivotal Cloud Foundry UAA XSS on UAA OpenID Connect check session iframe endpoint
Medium Also affects org.cloudfoundry.identity:cloudfoundry-identity-server
GHSA-j4p3-2m2h-cv5f
Cloud Foundry UAA Denial of Service through client token revocation endpoint
Medium Also affects org.cloudfoundry.identity:cloudfoundry-identity-server
GHSA-9frw-wmvq-5rrc
Cloud Foundry UAA Identity Zone Admin Privilege Escalation
Medium Also affects org.cloudfoundry.identity:cloudfoundry-identity-server
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