GHSA-wmff-grcw-jcfm CVE-2023-34460
Tauri vulnerable to Regression on Filesystem Scope Checks for Dotfiles
- Severity
- 4.8 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.65%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 51.04% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-285 Improper Authorization
- Fix
1.4.1- Upgrade tauri to this version or later
Description
Impact
The 1.4.0 release includes a regression on the filesystem scope check for dotfiles on Linux and macOS.
Previously dotfiles (eg. $HOME/.ssh/) were not implicitly allowed by the glob wildcard scopes (eg. $HOME/*), but a regression was introduced when a configuration option for this behavior was implemented and dotfiles were implicitly allowed.
Only Tauri applications using wildcard scopes in the fs endpoint are affected.
Only macOS and Linux systems are affected.
Patches
The regression has been patched on v1.4.1.
Workarounds
There are no known workarounds at this time, users should update to v1.4.1 immediately.
References
See the original advisory for more information.
For more Information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:
Open an issue in tauri Email us at security@tauri.app
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| tauri | >= 1.4.0, < 1.4.1 |
1.4.1 |
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.
tauri crates.io → 1.4.1
- cargo
cargo update -p tauri --precise 1.4.1
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 4.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Adjacent
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-285: Improper Authorization
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
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) 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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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.
- 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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-7gmj-67g7-phm9 Tauri has an Origin Confusion Issue that Allows Remote Pages to Invoke Local-Only IPC Commands | High | Also affects tauri |
| GHSA-57fm-592m-34r7 iFrames Bypass Origin Checks for Tauri API Access Control | Medium | Also affects tauri |
| GHSA-4wm2-cwcf-wwvp Tauri Open Redirect Vulnerability Possibly Exposes IPC to External Sites | Medium | Also affects tauri |
| GHSA-6mv3-wm7j-h4w5 Tauri Filesystem Scope Glob Pattern is too Permissive | High | Also affects tauri |
| GHSA-q9wv-22m9-vhqh Tauri Filesystem Scope can be Partially Bypassed | Medium | Also affects tauri |
| GHSA-28m8-9j7v-x499 Tauri's readDir Endpoint Scope can be Bypassed With Symbolic Links | Medium | Also affects tauri |
| GHSA-2gc7-j998-5xx6 Nginx UI: Account Takeover via Missing `RequireSecureSession` on User Management Endpoint | High | Same weakness, CWE-285 |
| GHSA-w2ch-4xgr-22ww Vikunja: Task relation deletion does not check read access to the other task, allowing cross-project relation removal | Low | Same weakness, CWE-285 |
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