Apache Log4j <=2.14.1 JNDI features used in configuration, log messages, and parameters do not protect against attacker controlled LDAP and other JNDI related endpoints. An attacker who can control log messages or log message parameters can execute arbitrary code loaded from LDAP servers when message lookup substitution is enabled (CVE-2021-44228).

Last updated 22 August 2024

Impact The vulnerability may allow a remote attacker has sufficient rights to execute commands of the host only by manipulating the processed input stream. No user is affected, who followed the recommendation to setup XStream's security framework with a whitelist limited to the minimal required types.

Patches If you rely on XStream's default blacklist of the Security Framework, you will have to use at least version 1.4.17.

Workarounds See workarounds for the different versions covering all CVEs.

References See full information about the nature of the vulnerability and the steps to reproduce it in XStream's documentation for CVE-2021-29505.

Credits

V3geB1rd, white hat hacker from Tencent Security Response Center found and reported the issue to XStream and provided the required information to reproduce it.

For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: Open an issue in XStream Email us at XStream Google Group

Vulnerability in the Oracle Communications BRM - Elastic Charging Engine product of Oracle Communications (component: Diameter Gateway and SDK). Supported versions that are affected are 15.0.0.0.0, 15.0.1.0.0, 15.1.0.0.0 and 15.2.0.0.0. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with logon to the infrastructure where Oracle Communications BRM - Elastic Charging Engine executes to compromise Oracle Communications BRM - Elastic Charging Engine. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Oracle Communications BRM - Elastic Charging Engine. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 7.8 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).

In Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.15 and versions 5.3.x prior to 5.3.7, a WebFlux application is vulnerable to a privilege escalation: by (re)creating the temporary storage directory, a locally authenticated malicious user can read or modify files that have been uploaded to the WebFlux application, or overwrite arbitrary files with multipart request data.

Pivotal Spring Framework is vulnerable to a denial of service, caused by improper handling of range request by the ResourceHttpRequestHandler. By adding a range header with a high number of ranges, a remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to cause a denial of service condition.

Impact The Snappy frame decoder function doesn't restrict the chunk length which may lead to excessive memory usage. Beside this it also may buffer reserved skippable chunks until the whole chunk was received which may lead to excessive memory usage as well.

This vulnerability can be triggered by supplying malicious input that decompresses to a very big size (via a network stream or a file) or by sending a huge skippable chunk.

Impact

All users of SnappyFrameDecoder are affected and so the application may be in risk for a DoS attach due excessive memory usage.

References https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/netty-4.1.67.Final/codec/src/main/java/io/netty/handler/codec/compression/SnappyFrameDecoder.java#L79 https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/netty-4.1.67.Final/codec/src/main/java/io/netty/handler/codec/compression/SnappyFrameDecoder.java#L171 https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/netty-4.1.67.Final/codec/src/main/java/io/netty/handler/codec/compression/SnappyFrameDecoder.java#L185

Impact The Bzip2 decompression decoder function doesn't allow setting size restrictions on the decompressed output data (which affects the allocation size used during decompression).

All users of Bzip2Decoder are affected. The malicious input can trigger an OOME and so a DoS attack

Workarounds No workarounds other than not using the Bzip2Decoder

References

Relevant code areas:

https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/netty-4.1.67.Final/codec/src/main/java/io/netty/handler/codec/compression/Bzip2Decoder.java#L80 https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/netty-4.1.67.Final/codec/src/main/java/io/netty/handler/codec/compression/Bzip2Decoder.java#L294 https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/netty-4.1.67.Final/codec/src/main/java/io/netty/handler/codec/compression/Bzip2Decoder.java#L305

XStream is an open source java library to serialize objects to XML and back again. Versions prior to 1.4.19 may allow a remote attacker to allocate 100% CPU time on the target system depending on CPU type or parallel execution of such a payload resulting in a denial of service only by manipulating the processed input stream. XStream 1.4.19 monitors and accumulates the time it takes to add elements to collections and throws an exception if a set threshold is exceeded. Users are advised to upgrade as soon as possible. Users unable to upgrade may set the NOREFERENCE mode to prevent recursion. See GHSA-rmr5-cpv2-vgjf for further details on a workaround if an upgrade is not possible.

Impact

When netty's multipart decoders are used local information disclosure can occur via the local system temporary directory if temporary storing uploads on the disk is enabled.

The CVSSv3.1 score of this vulnerability is calculated to be a 6.2/10

Vulnerability Details

On unix-like systems, the temporary directory is shared between all user. As such, writing to this directory using APIs that do not explicitly set the file/directory permissions can lead to information disclosure. Of note, this does not impact modern MacOS Operating Systems.

The method File.createTempFile on unix-like systems creates a random file, but, by default will create this file with the permissions -rw-r--r--. Thus, if sensitive information is written to this file, other local users can read this information.

This is the case in netty's AbstractDiskHttpData is vulnerable.

https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/e5951d46fc89db507ba7d2968d2ede26378f0b04/codec-http/src/main/java/io/netty/handler/codec/http/multipart/AbstractDiskHttpData.java#L80-L101

AbstractDiskHttpData is used as a part of the DefaultHttpDataFactory class which is used by HttpPostRequestDecoder / HttpPostMultiPartRequestDecoder.

You may be affected by this vulnerability your project contains the following code patterns:

java channelPipeline.addLast(new HttpPostRequestDecoder(...));

java channelPipeline.addLast(new HttpPostMultiPartRequestDecoder(...));

Patches

This has been patched in version 4.1.59.Final.

Workarounds

Specify your own java.io.tmpdir when you start the JVM or use DefaultHttpDataFactory.setBaseDir(...) to set the directory to something that is only readable by the current user.

References

- CWE-378: Creation of Temporary File With Insecure Permissions - CWE-379: Creation of Temporary File in Directory with Insecure Permissions

Similar Vulnerabilities

Similar, but not the same.

- JUnit 4 - https://github.com/junit-team/junit4/security/advisories/GHSA-269g-pwp5-87pp - Google Guava - https://github.com/google/guava/issues/4011 - Apache Ant - https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-1945 - JetBrains Kotlin Compiler - https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-15824

For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: Open an issue in netty Email us here

Original Report

Hi Netty Security Team, I've been working on some security research leveraging custom CodeQL queries to detect local information disclosure vulnerabilities in java applications. This was the result from running this query against the netty project: https://lgtm.com/query/7723301787255288599/ Netty contains three local information disclosure vulnerabilities, so far as I can tell. One is here, where the private key for the certificate is written to a temporary file. https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/e5951d46fc89db507ba7d2968d2ede26378f0b04/handler/src/main/java/io/netty/handler/ssl/util/SelfSignedCertificate.java#L316-L346 One is here, where the certificate is written to a temporary file. https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/e5951d46fc89db507ba7d2968d2ede26378f0b04/handler/src/main/java/io/netty/handler/ssl/util/SelfSignedCertificate.java#L348-L371 The final one is here, where the 'AbstractDiskHttpData' creates a temporary file if the getBaseDirectory() method returns null. I believe that 'AbstractDiskHttpData' is used as a part of the file upload support? If this is the case, any files uploaded would be similarly vulnerable. https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/e5951d46fc89db507ba7d2968d2ede26378f0b04/codec-http/src/main/java/io/netty/handler/codec/http/multipart/AbstractDiskHttpData.java#L91 All of these vulnerabilities exist because File.createTempFile(String, String) will create a temporary file in the system temporary directory if the 'java.io.tmpdir' system property is not explicitly set. It is my understanding that when java creates a file, by default, and using this method, the permissions on that file utilize the umask. In a majority of cases, this means that the file that java creates has the permissions: -rw-r--r--, thus, any other local user on that system can read the contents of that file. Impacted OS: - Any OS where the system temporary directory is shared between multiple users. This is not the case for MacOS or Windows. Mitigation. Moving to the Files API instead will fix this vulnerability. https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/nio/file/Files.html#createTempFile-java.nio.file.Path-java.lang.String-java.lang.String-java.nio.file.attribute.FileAttribute...- This API will explicitly set the posix file permissions to something safe, by default. I recently disclosed a similar vulnerability in JUnit 4: https://github.com/junit-team/junit4/security/advisories/GHSA-269g-pwp5-87pp If you're also curious, this vulnerability in Jetty was also mine, also involving temporary directories, but is not the same vulnerability as in this case. https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/security/advisories/GHSA-g3wg-6mcf-8jj6 I would appreciate it if we could perform disclosure of this vulnerability leveraging the GitHub security advisories feature here. GitHub has a nice credit system that I appreciate, plus the disclosures, as you can see from the sampling above, end up looking very nice. https://github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories This vulnerability disclosure follows Google's 90-day vulnerability disclosure policy (I'm not an employee of Google, I just like their policy). Full disclosure will occur either at the end of the 90-day deadline or whenever a patch is made widely available, whichever occurs first. Cheers, Jonathan Leitschuh

Impact The content-length header is not correctly validated if the request only use a single Http2HeaderFrame with the endStream set to to true. This could lead to request smuggling if the request is proxied to a remote peer and translated to HTTP/1.1

This is a followup of https://github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories/GHSA-wm47-8v5p-wjpj which did miss to fix this one case.

Patches This was fixed as part of 4.1.61.Final

Workarounds Validation can be done by the user before proxy the request by validating the header.

Apache Kafka could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information, caused by a timing attack flaw due to the use of "Arrays.equals" to validate a password or key. By utilizing brute-force attack techniques, an attacker could exploit this vulnerability to obtain credentials information, and use this information to launch further attacks against the affected system.

A flaw was found in Apache Groovy. Groovy makes use of a method for creating temporary directories which is not suitable for security-sensitive contexts and allows for sensitive information leakage. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality.

Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.3 are vulnerable to CSRF attacks through CORS preflight requests that target Spring MVC (spring-webmvc module) or Spring WebFlux (spring-webflux module) endpoints. Only non-authenticated endpoints are vulnerable because preflight requests should not include credentials and therefore requests should fail authentication. However a notable exception to this are Chrome based browsers when using client certificates for authentication since Chrome sends TLS client certificates in CORS preflight requests in violation of spec requirements. No HTTP body can be sent or received as a result of this attack.