Skip to content

GHSA-rfmp-97jj-h8m6 CVE-2021-22096

Improper Output Neutralization for Logs in Spring Framework

Medium Maven
Severity
4.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.35%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 71.55% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-117 Improper Output Neutralization for Logs
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

In Spring Framework versions 5.3.0 - 5.3.10, 5.2.0 - 5.2.17, and older unsupported versions, it is possible for a user to provide malicious input to cause the insertion of additional log entries.

Affected versions

Maven

PackageVulnerableFixed in
org.springframework:spring
>= 5.2.0, < 5.2.18
5.2.18
org.springframework:spring
>= 5.3.0, < 5.3.11
5.3.11
org.springframework:spring-core
>= 5.3.0, < 5.3.11
5.3.11
org.springframework:spring-core
>= 5.2.0, < 5.2.18
5.2.18

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.springframework:spring Maven → 5.2.18

maven
<dependency><groupId>org.springframework</groupId><artifactId>spring</artifactId><version>5.2.18</version></dependency>
gradle
implementation("org.springframework:spring:5.2.18")

org.springframework:spring-core Maven → 5.3.11

maven
<dependency><groupId>org.springframework</groupId><artifactId>spring-core</artifactId><version>5.3.11</version></dependency>
gradle
implementation("org.springframework:spring-core:5.3.11")

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-117: Improper Output Neutralization for Logs

The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file.

How to prevent it
  • 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.
  • Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-659m-px2c-25wj
Spring Framework Denial of Service via AntPathMatcher
High Also affects org.springframework:spring-core
GHSA-jmp9-x22r-554x
Spring Framework annotation detection mechanism may result in improper authorization
High Also affects org.springframework:spring-core
GHSA-r4q3-7g4q-x89m
Spring Framework server Web DoS Vulnerability
High Also affects org.springframework:spring-core
GHSA-7phw-cxx7-q9vq
Spring Framework is vulnerable to security bypass via mvcRequestMatcher pattern mismatch
High Also affects org.springframework:spring
GHSA-wv88-pf73-x22p
Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code in Spring Framework
High Also affects org.springframework:spring-core
GHSA-f866-m9mv-2xr3
Spring Framework and Spring Security vulnerable to Deserialization of Untrusted Data
Medium Also affects org.springframework:spring-core
GHSA-rhcg-rwhx-qj3j
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory in Spring Framework
Medium Also affects org.springframework:spring-core
GHSA-wjjr-h4wh-w6vv
Spring Framework Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity
Medium Also affects org.springframework:spring-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