GHSA-rwcp-qrwg-56cg CVE-2023-34927
Casdoor Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability
Medium
Go
- Severity
- 6.5 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 3.07%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 87.63% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Casdoor v1.331.0 and below was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in the endpoint /api/set-password. This vulnerability allows attackers to arbitrarily change the victim user's password via supplying a crafted URL.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/casdoor/casdoor | <= 1.331.0 |
No fix yet |
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 6.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- 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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-mfvp-7p3v-x9mh Casdoor SAML callback handler accepts any well-formed SAMLResponse sent to /api/acs without verifying that it corresponds to an AuthnRequest | Critical | Also affects github.com/casdoor/casdoor |
| GHSA-339w-3hqm-9pjc Casdoor doesn't verify that a JWT used for token exchange is still active | Critical | Also affects github.com/casdoor/casdoor |
| GHSA-rgq2-93gj-ffxg Casdoor doesn't enforce SAML assertion time bounds | High | Also affects github.com/casdoor/casdoor |
| GHSA-c9w5-qp6m-m395 Casdoor: GetTokenExchangeToken bypass through lack of cross-organization JWT signature check | Critical | Also affects github.com/casdoor/casdoor |
| GHSA-3w4h-g9f5-j84p Casdoor does not validate the AudienceRestriction element in SAML assertions | Critical | Also affects github.com/casdoor/casdoor |
| GHSA-gv4m-v8c8-hr3g Casdoor allows users to bypass configured MFA requirements | Medium | Also affects github.com/casdoor/casdoor |
| GHSA-fwgq-j9r9-qjgr Casdoor has an authentication bypass | Critical | Also affects github.com/casdoor/casdoor |
| GHSA-rmxx-v9rj-vpvg Casdoor: Arbitrary file write possible through Local File System storage provider | Medium | Also affects github.com/casdoor/casdoor |
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