Skip to content

GHSA-xq5j-gw7f-jgj8 CVE-2020-8167

CSRF Vulnerability in rails-ujs

Medium RubyGems
Severity
6.5 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.49%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 74.02% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Fix
5.2.4.3
Upgrade actionview to this version or later

Description

There is a vulnerability in rails-ujs that allows attackers to send CSRF tokens to wrong domains.

Versions Affected: rails <= 6.0.3 Not affected: Applications which don't use rails-ujs. Fixed Versions: rails >= 5.2.4.3, rails >= 6.0.3.1

Impact

This is a regression of CVE-2015-1840.

In the scenario where an attacker might be able to control the href attribute of an anchor tag or the action attribute of a form tag that will trigger a POST action, the attacker can set the href or action to a cross-origin URL, and the CSRF token will be sent.

Workarounds

To work around this problem, change code that allows users to control the href attribute of an anchor tag or the action attribute of a form tag to filter the user parameters.

For example, code like this:

link_to params

to code like this:

link_to filtered_params

def filtered_params
  # Filter just the parameters that you trust
end

Affected versions

RubyGems

PackageVulnerableFixed in
actionview
>= 5.0.0, < 5.2.4.3
5.2.4.3
actionview
>= 6.0.0, < 6.0.3.1
6.0.3.1

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.

actionview RubyGems → 5.2.4.3

bundler
bundle update actionview # Gemfile: gem "actionview", ">= 5.2.4.3"

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
CVE-2019-5418
Path Traversal in Action View
High Known exploited Also affects actionview
GHSA-xrr4-p6fq-hjg7
Directory traversal vulnerability in Action View in Ruby on Rails
High Known exploited Also affects actionview
GHSA-v55j-83pf-r9cq
Rails has a possible XSS vulnerability in its Action View tag helpers
Low Also affects actionview
GHSA-xp5h-f8jf-rc8q
rails-ujs vulnerable to DOM Based Cross-site Scripting contenteditable HTML Elements
Medium Also affects actionview
GHSA-ch3h-j2vf-95pv
XSS Vulnerability in Action View tag helpers
Medium Also affects actionview
GHSA-cfjv-5498-mph5
XSS in Action View
Medium Also affects actionview
GHSA-cr3x-7m39-c6jq
Remote code execution via user-provided local names in ActionView
High Also affects actionview
GHSA-65cv-r6x7-79hv
Cross site scripting vulnerability in ActionView
Medium Also affects actionview
Is this in your code?

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