GHSA-wfrj-qqc2-83cm
Remote command injection when using sendmail email transport
Medium
npm
- Severity
- 5.8 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- —
- No score published
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-88 Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
- Fix
4.15.0- Upgrade ghost to this version or later
Description
Impact
Sites using the sendmail transport as part of their mail config are vulnerable to remote command injection due to a vulnerability in the nodemailer dependency.
Ghost defaults to the direct transport so this is only exploitable if the sendmail transport is explicitly used.
Patches
Fixed in 4.15.0, all sites should upgrade as soon as possible.
Workarounds
- Use an alternative email transport as described in the docs.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:
- email us at security@ghost.org
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| ghost | < 4.15.0 |
4.15.0 |
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.
ghost npm → 4.15.0
- npm
npm install ghost@4.15.0- yarn
yarn add ghost@4.15.0- pnpm
pnpm add ghost@4.15.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-88: Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command. For example, in PHP, escapeshellarg() can be used to escape a single argument to system(), or exec() can be called with an array of arguments. In C, code can often be refactored from using system() - which accepts a single string - to using exec(), which requires separate function arguments for each parameter.
- Architecture and Design: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Perform input validation at well-defined interfaces.
- 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: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
- Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Last updated by the source
- Published
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-x3mg-q38v-m562 Ghost: Authorization Issue Allowed Author Role to Delete any Post | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-8575-cr6v-7jh4 Ghost: Stored XSS via SVG Uploads Bypassing Sanitization | High | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-r7f2-6fj8-6fg2 Ghost: Private IP Filtering Bypass via IPv6 Transition Addresses | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-322m-ff4g-9vx9 Ghost: Server-Side Request Forgery in Bookmark Fetching | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-fwh9-qg68-vxp4 Ghost: Regular Expression Denial of Service in Content Import | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-9m4w-fmjw-fvjq Ghost: Regular Expression Denial of Service in External Media Inliner | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-hqq2-xqr2-fmx2 Ghost : Stored XSS via SVG Files in Content Imports | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-69qc-f5m6-889c Ghost: Stored XSS via Embed Card Previews | High | Also affects ghost |
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