GHSA-xp3g-2729-rxm3 CVE-2023-0316
Froxlor is vulnerable to path traversal
Medium
Packagist
- Severity
- 5.5 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.75%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 54.98% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-29 Path Traversal: '\..\filename'
- Fix
2.0.0- Upgrade froxlor/froxlor to this version or later
Description
Path Traversal: '..\filename' in GitHub repository froxlor/froxlor prior to 2.0.0.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| froxlor/froxlor | < 2.0.0 |
2.0.0 |
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.
froxlor/froxlor Packagist → 2.0.0
- composer
composer require froxlor/froxlor:^2.0.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-29: Path Traversal: '\..\filename'
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '\..\filename' (leading backslash dot dot) sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- 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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-7788-ghfq-c6mh Froxlor: Credential and 2FA secret disclosure via Froxlor API endpoints | Critical | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-xpr4-8vp6-c87j Froxlor has CSRF Vulnerability in AJAX Endpoint — Missing Cross-Site Request Forgery Protection | Medium | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-5rw4-4665-cvwf Froxlor DomainZones.add allows DNS zone-file RR injection via record/type fields | Medium | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-w27m-rmmf-g5w4 Froxlor: Second-Order SQL Injection via `Admins.add` `ipaddress` Parameter Allows Full Database Exfiltration | High | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-43gm-9rr3-cx7g Froxlor: Stored XSS in DNS TXT Record Content Allows Customer-to-Admin Account Takeover | High | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-q4rm-m6xh-5pv7 Froxlor customer can create MySQL databases on disallowed servers via Mysqls.add API | Medium | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-mr9h-45p9-fg8h Froxlor: Authenticated customers can read other customers' allowed sender aliases | Medium | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-f9rx-7wf7-jr36 Froxlor's API Authentication bypasses 2FA Authentication | High | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
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