GHSA-x6xq-whh3-gg32 CVE-2024-43783
Apollo Router Coprocessors may cause Denial-of-Service when handling request bodies
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.86%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 58.45% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
- Fix
1.52.1- Upgrade apollo-router to this version or later
Description
Impact
Instances of the Apollo Router using either of the following may be impacted by a denial-of-service vulnerability.
- External Coprocessing with specific configurations; or
- Native Rust Plugins accessing the Router request body in the RouterService layer
Router customizations using Rhai scripts are not impacted.
When using External Coprocessing:
Instances of the Apollo Router running versions >=1.21.0 and <1.52.1 are impacted by a denial-of-service vulnerability if all of the following are true:
- Router has been configured to support External Coprocessing.
- Router has been configured to send request bodies to coprocessors. This is a non-default configuration and must be configured intentionally by administrators.
You can identify if you are impacted by reviewing your router's configuration YAML for the following config:
...
coprocessor:
url: http://localhost:9000 # likely different in your environment
router:
request:
body: true # this must be set to 'true' to be impacted
...
External Coprocessing was initially made available as an experimental feature with Router version 1.21.0 on 2023-06-20 and was made generally available with Router version 1.38.0 on 2024-01-19. More information about the Router’s External Coprocessing feature is available here.
When using Native Rust Plugins:
Instances of the Apollo Router running versions >=1.7.0 and <1.52.1 are impacted by a denial-of-service vulnerability if all of the following are true:
- Router has been configured to use a custom-developed Native Rust Plugin
- The plugin accesses
Request.router_requestin theRouterServicelayer - You are accumulating the body from
Request.router_requestinto memory
To use a plugin, you need to be running a customized Router binary. Additionally, you need to have a plugins section with at least one plugin defined in your Router’s configuration YAML. That plugin would also need to define a custom router_service method.
You can check for a defined plugin by reviewing for the following in your Router’s configuration YAML:
...
plugins:
custom_plugin_name:
# custom config here
...
You can check for a custom router_service method in a plugin, by reviewing for the following function signature in your plugin’s source:
fn router_service(&self, service: router::BoxService) -> router::BoxService
More information about the Router’s Native Rust Plugin feature is available here.
Impact Detail
If using an impacted configuration, the Router will load entire HTTP request bodies into memory without respect to other HTTP request size-limiting configurations like limits.http_max_request_bytes. This can cause the Router to be out-of-memory (OOM) terminated if a sufficiently large request is sent to the Router.
By default, the Router sets limits.http_max_request_bytes to 2 MB. More information about the Router’s request limiting features is available here.
Patches
If you have an impacted configuration as defined above, please upgrade to at least Apollo Router 1.52.1.
Workarounds
If you cannot upgrade, you can mitigate the denial-of-service opportunity impacting External Coprocessors by setting the coprocessor.router.request.body configuration option to false. Please note that changing this configuration option will change the information sent to any coprocessors you have configured and may impact functionality implemented by those coprocessors.
If you have developed a Native Rust Plugin and cannot upgrade, you can update your plugin to either not accumulate the request body or enforce a maximum body size limit.
You can also mitigate this issue by limiting HTTP body payload sizes prior to the Router (e.g., in a proxy or web application firewall appliance).
References
Apollo Router 1.52.1 Release Notes External Coprocessing documentation HTTP Request Limiting documentation Native Rust Plugin documentation
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| apollo-router | >= 1.7.0, < 1.52.1 |
1.52.1 |
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.
apollo-router crates.io → 1.52.1
- cargo
cargo update -p apollo-router --precise 1.52.1
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
- Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
- Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
- 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.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
- Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/apollographql/router/security/advisories/GHSA-x6xq-whh3-gg32
- github.com/apollographql/router/commit/7a9c020608a62dcaa306b72ed0f6980f15923b14
- github.com/apollographql/router/releases/tag/v1.52.1
- apollographql.com/docs/router/configuration/overview
- apollographql.com/docs/router/customizations/coprocessor
- apollographql.com/docs/router/customizations/native
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-hff2-gcpx-8f4p Apollo Router Core: Browser Bug Enables Bypass of XS-Search Prevention via Read-Only Cross-Site Request Forgery | Medium | Also affects apollo-router |
| GHSA-x33c-7c2v-mrj9 Apollo Router Affected by an Access Control Bypass on Polymorphic Types | High | Also affects apollo-router |
| GHSA-g8jh-vg5j-4h3f Apollo Router Improperly Enforces Renamed Access Control Directives | High | Also affects apollo-router |
| GHSA-3j43-9v8v-cp3f Apollo Router Query Validation Vulnerable to Excessive Resource Consumption via Named Fragment Processing | High | Also affects apollo-router |
| GHSA-84m6-5m72-45fp Apollo Router Operation Limits Vulnerable to Bypass via Integer Overflow | High | Also affects apollo-router |
| GHSA-75m2-jhh5-j5g2 Apollo Router Query Planner Vulnerable to Excessive Resource Consumption via Named Fragment Expansion | High | Also affects apollo-router |
| GHSA-94hh-jmq8-2fgp Apollo Router Query Planner Vulnerable to Excessive Resource Consumption via Optimization Bypass | High | Also affects apollo-router |
| GHSA-fmj9-77q8-g6c4 Apollo Query Planner and Apollo Gateway may infinitely loop on sufficiently complex queries | High | Also affects apollo-router |
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