forked from snyk-labs/nodejs-goof
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
example111.json
3021 lines (3021 loc) · 453 KB
/
example111.json
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
{
"$schema": "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/oasis-tcs/sarif-spec/master/Schemata/sarif-schema-2.1.0.json",
"version": "2.1.0",
"runs": [
{
"tool": {
"driver": {
"name": "Snyk Open Source",
"rules": [
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-ADMZIP-1065796",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Directory Traversal vulnerability in adm-zip"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "adm-zip@0.4.7"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: adm-zip\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and adm-zip@0.4.7\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › adm-zip@0.4.7\n# Overview\n[adm-zip](https://www.npmjs.com/package/adm-zip) is a JavaScript implementation for zip data compression for NodeJS.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Directory Traversal. It could extract files outside the target folder.\n\n# Details\n\nA Directory Traversal attack (also known as path traversal) aims to access files and directories that are stored outside the intended folder. By manipulating files with \"dot-dot-slash (../)\" sequences and its variations, or by using absolute file paths, it may be possible to access arbitrary files and directories stored on file system, including application source code, configuration, and other critical system files.\n\nDirectory Traversal vulnerabilities can be generally divided into two types:\n\n- **Information Disclosure**: Allows the attacker to gain information about the folder structure or read the contents of sensitive files on the system.\n\n`st` is a module for serving static files on web pages, and contains a [vulnerability of this type](https://snyk.io/vuln/npm:st:20140206). In our example, we will serve files from the `public` route.\n\nIf an attacker requests the following URL from our server, it will in turn leak the sensitive private key of the root user.\n\n```\ncurl http://localhost:8080/public/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/root/.ssh/id_rsa\n```\n**Note** `%2e` is the URL encoded version of `.` (dot).\n\n- **Writing arbitrary files**: Allows the attacker to create or replace existing files. This type of vulnerability is also known as `Zip-Slip`. \n\nOne way to achieve this is by using a malicious `zip` archive that holds path traversal filenames. When each filename in the zip archive gets concatenated to the target extraction folder, without validation, the final path ends up outside of the target folder. If an executable or a configuration file is overwritten with a file containing malicious code, the problem can turn into an arbitrary code execution issue quite easily.\n\nThe following is an example of a `zip` archive with one benign file and one malicious file. Extracting the malicious file will result in traversing out of the target folder, ending up in `/root/.ssh/` overwriting the `authorized_keys` file:\n\n```\n2018-04-15 22:04:29 ..... 19 19 good.txt\n2018-04-15 22:04:42 ..... 20 20 ../../../../../../root/.ssh/authorized_keys\n```\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `adm-zip` to version 0.5.2 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/cthackers/adm-zip/commit/119dcad6599adccc77982feb14a0c7440fa63013)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-22",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "npm:adm-zip:20180415",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Arbitrary File Write via Archive Extraction (Zip Slip) vulnerability in adm-zip"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2018-1002204) adm-zip@0.4.7"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: adm-zip\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and adm-zip@0.4.7\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › adm-zip@0.4.7\n# Overview\n\n[adm-zip](https://www.npmjs.com/package/adm-zip) is a JavaScript implementation for zip data compression for NodeJS.\n\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Write via Archive Extraction (Zip Slip).\n\n# Details\nIt is exploited using a specially crafted zip archive, that holds path traversal filenames. When exploited, a filename in a malicious archive is concatenated to the target extraction directory, which results in the final path ending up outside of the target folder. For instance, a zip may hold a file with a \"../../file.exe\" location and thus break out of the target folder. If an executable or a configuration file is overwritten with a file containing malicious code, the problem can turn into an arbitrary code execution issue quite easily.\r\n\r\nThe following is an example of a zip archive with one benign file and one malicious file. Extracting the malicous file will result in traversing out of the target folder, ending up in `/root/.ssh/` overwriting the `authorized_keys` file:\r\n\r\n```\r\n\r\n+2018-04-15 22:04:29 ..... 19 19 good.txt\r\n\r\n+2018-04-15 22:04:42 ..... 20 20 ../../../../../../root/.ssh/authorized_keys\r\n\r\n```\n\n# Remediation\n\nUpgrade `adm-zip` to version 0.4.11 or higher.\n\n\n# References\n\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/cthackers/adm-zip/commit/d01fa8c80c3a5fcf5ce1eda82d96600c62910d3f)\n\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/cthackers/adm-zip/pull/212/commits/6f4dfeb9a2166e93207443879988f97d88a37cde)\n\n- [Hackerone Report](https://hackerone.com/reports/362118)\n\n- [Zip Slip Advisory](https://github.com/snyk/zip-slip-vulnerability)\n\n- [Zip Slip Advisory](https://snyk.io/research/zip-slip-vulnerability)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-29",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-AJV-584908",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in ajv"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2020-15366) ajv@6.10.2"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: ajv\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, tap@11.1.5 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › coveralls@3.0.9 › request@2.88.0 › har-validator@5.1.3 › ajv@6.10.2\n# Overview\n[ajv](https://www.npmjs.com/package/ajv) is an Another JSON Schema Validator\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. A carefully crafted JSON schema could be provided that allows execution of other code by prototype pollution. (While untrusted schemas are recommended against, the worst case of an untrusted schema should be a denial of service, not execution of code.)\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `ajv` to version 6.12.3 or higher.\n# References\n- [HackerOne Report](https://hackerone.com/bugs?subject=user&report_id=894259)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-BL-608877",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Remote Memory Exposure vulnerability in bl"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2020-8244) bl@2.2.0"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: bl\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, mongodb@3.5.9 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › mongodb@3.5.9 › bl@2.2.0\n# Overview\n[bl](https://github.com/rvagg/bl) is a library that allows you to collect buffers and access with a standard readable buffer interface.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Remote Memory Exposure. If user input ends up in `consume()` argument and can become negative, BufferList state can be corrupted, tricking it into exposing uninitialized memory via regular `.slice()` calls.\r\n\r\n## PoC by chalker\r\n```\r\nconst { BufferList } = require('bl')\r\nconst secret = require('crypto').randomBytes(256)\r\nfor (let i = 0; i < 1e6; i++) {\r\n const clone = Buffer.from(secret)\r\n const bl = new BufferList()\r\n bl.append(Buffer.from('a'))\r\n bl.consume(-1024)\r\n const buf = bl.slice(1)\r\n if (buf.indexOf(clone) !== -1) {\r\n console.error(`Match (at ${i})`, buf)\r\n }\r\n}\r\n```\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `bl` to version 2.2.1, 3.0.1, 4.0.3, 1.2.3 or higher.\n# References\n- [Github Commit](https://github.com/rvagg/bl/commit/8a8c13c880e2bef519133ea43e0e9b78b5d0c91e)\n- [Github Commit](https://github.com/rvagg/bl/commit/d3e240e3b8ba4048d3c76ef5fb9dd1f8872d3190)\n- [Github Commit](https://github.com/rvagg/bl/commit/dacc4ac7d5fcd6201bcf26fbd886951be9537466)\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/rvagg/bl/commit/0bd87ec97be399b129fc62feff2943ffa21bcc00)\n- [HackerOne Report](https://hackerone.com/reports/966347)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-9",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-DUSTJSLINKEDIN-1089257",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in dustjs-linkedin"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "dustjs-linkedin@2.5.0"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: dustjs-linkedin\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and dustjs-linkedin@2.5.0\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › dustjs-linkedin@2.5.0\n# Overview\n[dustjs-linkedin](https://www.npmjs.com/package/dustjs-linkedin) is a Javascript templating engine designed to run asynchronously on both the server and the browser.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. It is possible to pollute the `blocks` Array attribute of the object `context` within the `compileBlocks` function. This vulnerability can be leveraged for code execution since this property is added to the `compiled` function which is then execute by the `vm` module.\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nThere is no fixed version for `dustjs-linkedin`.\n# References\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/linkedin/dustjs/issues/804)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-1321",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "npm:dustjs-linkedin:20160819",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Code Injection vulnerability in dustjs-linkedin"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "dustjs-linkedin@2.5.0"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: dustjs-linkedin\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and dustjs-linkedin@2.5.0\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › dustjs-linkedin@2.5.0\n# Overview\n[dustjs-linkedin](https://www.npmjs.com/package/dustjs-linkedin) is a Javascript templating engine designed to run asynchronously on both the server and the browser.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Code Injection. Dust.js uses Javascript's `eval()` function to evaluate the \"if\" statement conditions. The input to the function is sanitized by escaping all potentially dangerous characters.\r\n\r\nHowever, if the variable passed in is an array, no escaping is applied, exposing an easy path to code injection. The risk of exploit is especially high given the fact `express`, `koa` and many other Node.js servers allow users to force a query parameter to be an array using the `param[]=value` notation.\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `dustjs-linkedin` to version 2.6.0 or higher.\n# References\n- [Artsploit Blog](https://artsploit.blogspot.co.il/2016/08/pprce2.html)\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/linkedin/dustjs/pull/534/commits/884be3bb3a34a843e6fb411100088e9b02326bd4)\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/linkedin/dustjs/issues/741)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/linkedin/dustjs/pull/534)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-95",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-EJS-1049328",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Arbitrary Code Injection vulnerability in ejs"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "ejs@1.0.0"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: ejs\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and ejs@1.0.0\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › ejs@1.0.0\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › ejs-locals@1.0.2 › ejs@0.8.8\n# Overview\n[ejs](https://www.npmjs.com/package/ejs) is a popular JavaScript templating engine.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary Code Injection via the `render` and `renderFile`. If external input is flowing into the `options` parameter, an attacker is able run arbitrary code. This include the `filename`, `compileDebug`, and `client` option.\r\n\r\n# POC\r\n```\r\nlet ejs = require('ejs')\r\nejs.render('./views/test.ejs',{\r\n filename:'/etc/passwd\\nfinally { this.global.process.mainModule.require(\\'child_process\\').execSync(\\'touch EJS_HACKED\\') }',\r\n compileDebug: true,\r\n message: 'test',\r\n client: true\r\n})\r\n```\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `ejs` to version 3.1.6 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/mde/ejs/commit/abaee2be937236b1b8da9a1f55096c17dda905fd)\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/mde/ejs/issues/571)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-94",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "npm:ejs:20161128",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Arbitrary Code Execution vulnerability in ejs"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2017-1000228) ejs@1.0.0"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: ejs\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and ejs@1.0.0\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › ejs@1.0.0\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › ejs-locals@1.0.2 › ejs@0.8.8\n# Overview\r\n[`ejs`](https://www.npmjs.com/package/ejs) is a popular JavaScript templating engine.\r\nAffected versions of the package are vulnerable to _Remote Code Execution_ by letting the attacker under certain conditions control the source folder from which the engine renders include files.\r\nYou can read more about this vulnerability on the [Snyk blog](https://snyk.io/blog/fixing-ejs-rce-vuln).\r\n\r\nThere's also a [Cross-site Scripting](https://snyk.io/vuln/npm:ejs:20161130) & [Denial of Service](https://snyk.io/vuln/npm:ejs:20161130-1) vulnerabilities caused by the same behaviour. \r\n\r\n# Details\r\n`ejs` provides a few different options for you to render a template, two being very similar: `ejs.render()` and `ejs.renderFile()`. The only difference being that `render` expects a string to be used for the template and `renderFile` expects a path to a template file.\r\n\r\nBoth functions can be invoked in two ways. The first is calling them with `template`, `data`, and `options`:\r\n```js\r\nejs.render(str, data, options);\r\n\r\nejs.renderFile(filename, data, options, callback)\r\n```\r\nThe second way would be by calling only the `template` and `data`, while `ejs` lets the `options` be passed as part of the `data`:\r\n```js\r\nejs.render(str, dataAndOptions);\r\n\r\nejs.renderFile(filename, dataAndOptions, callback)\r\n```\r\n\r\nIf used with a variable list supplied by the user (e.g. by reading it from the URI with `qs` or equivalent), an attacker can control `ejs` options. This includes the `root` option, which allows changing the project root for includes with an absolute path. \r\n\r\n```js\r\nejs.renderFile('my-template', {root:'/bad/root/'}, callback);\r\n```\r\n\r\nBy passing along the root directive in the line above, any includes would now be pulled from `/bad/root` instead of the path intended. This allows the attacker to take control of the root directory for included scripts and divert it to a library under his control, thus leading to remote code execution.\r\n\r\nThe [fix](https://github.com/mde/ejs/commit/3d447c5a335844b25faec04b1132dbc721f9c8f6) introduced in version `2.5.3` blacklisted `root` options from options passed via the `data` object.\r\n\r\n# Disclosure Timeline\r\n- November 27th, 2016 - Reported the issue to package owner.\r\n- November 27th, 2016 - Issue acknowledged by package owner.\r\n- November 28th, 2016 - Issue fixed and version `2.5.3` released.\r\n\r\n# Remediation\r\nThe vulnerability can be resolved by either using the GitHub integration to [generate a pull-request](https://snyk.io/org/projects) from your dashboard or by running `snyk wizard` from the command-line interface.\r\nOtherwise, Upgrade `ejs` to version `2.5.3` or higher.\r\n\r\n# References\r\n- [Snyk Blog](https://snyk.io/blog/fixing-ejs-rce-vuln)\r\n- [Fix commit](https://github.com/mde/ejs/commit/3d447c5a335844b25faec04b1132dbc721f9c8f6)"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-94",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "npm:ejs:20161130",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in ejs"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2017-1000188) ejs@1.0.0"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: ejs\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and ejs@1.0.0\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › ejs@1.0.0\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › ejs-locals@1.0.2 › ejs@0.8.8\n# Overview\n[`ejs`](https://www.npmjs.com/package/ejs) is a popular JavaScript templating engine.\nAffected versions of the package are vulnerable to _Cross-site Scripting_ by letting the attacker under certain conditions control and override the `filename` option causing it to render the value as is, without escaping it.\nYou can read more about this vulnerability on the [Snyk blog](https://snyk.io/blog/fixing-ejs-rce-vuln).\n\nThere's also a [Remote Code Execution](https://snyk.io/vuln/npm:ejs:20161128) & [Denial of Service](https://snyk.io/vuln/npm:ejs:20161130-1) vulnerabilities caused by the same behaviour.\n\n# Details\n`ejs` provides a few different options for you to render a template, two being very similar: `ejs.render()` and `ejs.renderFile()`. The only difference being that `render` expects a string to be used for the template and `renderFile` expects a path to a template file.\n\nBoth functions can be invoked in two ways. The first is calling them with `template`, `data`, and `options`:\n```js\nejs.render(str, data, options);\n\nejs.renderFile(filename, data, options, callback)\n```\nThe second way would be by calling only the `template` and `data`, while `ejs` lets the `options` be passed as part of the `data`:\n```js\nejs.render(str, dataAndOptions);\n\nejs.renderFile(filename, dataAndOptions, callback)\n```\n\nIf used with a variable list supplied by the user (e.g. by reading it from the URI with `qs` or equivalent), an attacker can control `ejs` options. This includes the `filename` option, which will be rendered as is when an error occurs during rendering. \n\n```js\nejs.renderFile('my-template', {filename:'<script>alert(1)</script>'}, callback);\n```\n\nThe [fix](https://github.com/mde/ejs/commit/49264e0037e313a0a3e033450b5c184112516d8f) introduced in version `2.5.3` blacklisted `root` options from options passed via the `data` object.\n\n# Disclosure Timeline\n- November 28th, 2016 - Reported the issue to package owner.\n- November 28th, 2016 - Issue acknowledged by package owner.\n- December 06th, 2016 - Issue fixed and version `2.5.5` released.\n\n# Remediation\nThe vulnerability can be resolved by either using the GitHub integration to [generate a pull-request](https://snyk.io/org/projects) from your dashboard or by running `snyk wizard` from the command-line interface.\nOtherwise, Upgrade `ejs` to version `2.5.5` or higher.\n\n# References\n- [Snyk Blog](https://snyk.io/blog/fixing-ejs-rce-vuln)\n- [Fix commit](https://github.com/mde/ejs/commit/49264e0037e313a0a3e033450b5c184112516d8f)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-79",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "npm:ejs:20161130-1",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability in ejs"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2017-1000189) ejs@1.0.0"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: ejs\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and ejs@1.0.0\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › ejs@1.0.0\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › ejs-locals@1.0.2 › ejs@0.8.8\n# Overview\n[`ejs`](https://www.npmjs.com/package/ejs) is a popular JavaScript templating engine.\nAffected versions of the package are vulnerable to _Denial of Service_ by letting the attacker under certain conditions control and override the `localNames` option causing it to crash.\nYou can read more about this vulnerability on the [Snyk blog](https://snyk.io/blog/fixing-ejs-rce-vuln).\n\nThere's also a [Remote Code Execution](https://snyk.io/vuln/npm:ejs:20161128) & [Cross-site Scripting](https://snyk.io/vuln/npm:ejs:20161130) vulnerabilities caused by the same behaviour.\n\n# Details\n`ejs` provides a few different options for you to render a template, two being very similar: `ejs.render()` and `ejs.renderFile()`. The only difference being that `render` expects a string to be used for the template and `renderFile` expects a path to a template file.\n\nBoth functions can be invoked in two ways. The first is calling them with `template`, `data`, and `options`:\n```js\nejs.render(str, data, options);\n\nejs.renderFile(filename, data, options, callback)\n```\nThe second way would be by calling only the `template` and `data`, while `ejs` lets the `options` be passed as part of the `data`:\n```js\nejs.render(str, dataAndOptions);\n\nejs.renderFile(filename, dataAndOptions, callback)\n```\n\nIf used with a variable list supplied by the user (e.g. by reading it from the URI with `qs` or equivalent), an attacker can control `ejs` options. This includes the `localNames` option, which will cause the renderer to crash.\n\n```js\nejs.renderFile('my-template', {localNames:'try'}, callback);\n```\n\nThe [fix](https://github.com/mde/ejs/commit/49264e0037e313a0a3e033450b5c184112516d8f) introduced in version `2.5.3` blacklisted `root` options from options passed via the `data` object.\n\n# Disclosure Timeline\n- November 28th, 2016 - Reported the issue to package owner.\n- November 28th, 2016 - Issue acknowledged by package owner.\n- December 06th, 2016 - Issue fixed and version `2.5.5` released.\n\n# Remediation\nThe vulnerability can be resolved by either using the GitHub integration to [generate a pull-request](https://snyk.io/org/projects) from your dashboard or by running `snyk wizard` from the command-line interface.\nOtherwise, Upgrade `ejs` to version `2.5.5` or higher.\n\n# References\n- [Snyk Blog](https://snyk.io/blog/fixing-ejs-rce-vuln)\n- [Fix commit](https://github.com/mde/ejs/commit/49264e0037e313a0a3e033450b5c184112516d8f)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-EXPRESSFILEUPLOAD-473997",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability in express-fileupload"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "express-fileupload@0.0.5"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: express-fileupload\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and express-fileupload@0.0.5\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › express-fileupload@0.0.5\n# Overview\n[express-fileupload](https://github.com/richardgirges/express-fileupload) is a file upload middleware for express that wraps around busboy.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS). The package does not limit file name length.\n\n# Details\n\nDenial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its intended and legitimate users.\n\nUnlike other vulnerabilities, DoS attacks usually do not aim at breaching security. Rather, they are focused on making websites and services unavailable to genuine users resulting in downtime.\n\nOne popular Denial of Service vulnerability is DDoS (a Distributed Denial of Service), an attack that attempts to clog network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines.\n\nWhen it comes to open source libraries, DoS vulnerabilities allow attackers to trigger such a crash or crippling of the service by using a flaw either in the application code or from the use of open source libraries.\n\nTwo common types of DoS vulnerabilities:\n\n* High CPU/Memory Consumption- An attacker sending crafted requests that could cause the system to take a disproportionate amount of time to process. For example, [commons-fileupload:commons-fileupload](SNYK-JAVA-COMMONSFILEUPLOAD-30082).\n\n* Crash - An attacker sending crafted requests that could cause the system to crash. For Example, [npm `ws` package](https://snyk.io/vuln/npm:ws:20171108)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `express-fileupload` to version 1.1.6-alpha.6 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/richardgirges/express-fileupload/pull/171)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-EXPRESSFILEUPLOAD-595969",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in express-fileupload"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2020-7699) express-fileupload@0.0.5"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: express-fileupload\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and express-fileupload@0.0.5\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › express-fileupload@0.0.5\n# Overview\n[express-fileupload](https://github.com/richardgirges/express-fileupload) is a file upload middleware for express that wraps around busboy.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. If the `parseNested` option is enabled, sending a corrupt HTTP request can lead to denial of service or arbitrary code execution.\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `express-fileupload` to version 1.1.10 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/richardgirges/express-fileupload/issues/236)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/richardgirges/express-fileupload/commit/9fca550f08a9dc07cc3500921f4fa7879cf88b8f)\n- [POSIX Vulnerability Blog](https://blog.p6.is/Real-World-JS-1/)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-HANDLEBARS-1056767",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in handlebars"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2021-23369) handlebars@4.0.11"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: handlebars\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, tap@11.1.5 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-reports@1.4.0 › handlebars@4.0.11\n# Overview\n[handlebars](https://www.npmjs.com/package/handlebars) is an extension to the Mustache templating language.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Remote Code Execution (RCE) when selecting certain compiling options to compile templates coming from an untrusted source.\r\n\r\n## POC\r\n```\r\n<script src=\"https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/handlebars@latest/dist/handlebars.js\"></script> \r\n<script> \r\n// compile the template \r\nvar s = ` \r\n{{#with (__lookupGetter__ \"__proto__\")}} \r\n{{#with (./constructor.getOwnPropertyDescriptor . \"valueOf\")}} \r\n{{#with ../constructor.prototype}} \r\n{{../../constructor.defineProperty . \"hasOwnProperty\" ..}} \r\n{{/with}} \r\n{{/with}} \r\n{{/with}} \r\n{{#with \"constructor\"}} \r\n{{#with split}} \r\n{{pop (push \"alert('Vulnerable Handlebars JS when compiling in strict mode');\")}} \r\n{{#with .}} \r\n{{#with (concat (lookup join (slice 0 1)))}} \r\n{{#each (slice 2 3)}} \r\n{{#with (apply 0 ../..)}} \r\n{{.}} \r\n{{/with}} \r\n{{/each}} \r\n{{/with}} \r\n{{/with}} \r\n{{/with}} \r\n{{/with}} \r\n`;\r\nvar template = Handlebars.compile(s, { \r\nstrict: true \r\n}); \r\n// execute the compiled template and print the output to the console console.log(template({})); \r\n</script>\r\n```\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `handlebars` to version 4.7.7 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/handlebars-lang/handlebars.js/commit/b6d3de7123eebba603e321f04afdbae608e8fea8)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-94",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-HANDLEBARS-1279029",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in handlebars"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2021-23383) handlebars@4.0.11"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: handlebars\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, tap@11.1.5 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-reports@1.4.0 › handlebars@4.0.11\n# Overview\n[handlebars](https://www.npmjs.com/package/handlebars) is an extension to the Mustache templating language.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution when selecting certain compiling options to compile templates coming from an untrusted source.\r\n\r\n## POC\r\n```\r\n<script src=\"https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/handlebars@latest/dist/handlebars.js\"></script> \r\n<script> \r\n// compile the template \r\n\r\nvar s2 = `{{'a/.\") || alert(\"Vulnerable Handlebars JS when compiling in compat mode'}}`; \r\nvar template = Handlebars.compile(s2, { \r\ncompat: true \r\n}); \r\n// execute the compiled template and print the output to the console console.log(template({})); \r\n</script>\r\n```\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `handlebars` to version 4.7.7 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/handlebars-lang/handlebars.js/commit/f0589701698268578199be25285b2ebea1c1e427)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-1321",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-HANDLEBARS-173692",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in handlebars"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "handlebars@4.0.11"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: handlebars\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, tap@11.1.5 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-reports@1.4.0 › handlebars@4.0.11\n# Overview\n[handlebars](https://www.npmjs.com/package/handlebars) is an extension to the Mustache templating language.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. Templates may alter an Objects' prototype, thus allowing an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the server.\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `handlebars` to version 4.0.14, 4.1.2 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/wycats/handlebars.js/commit/7372d4e9dffc9d70c09671aa28b9392a1577fd86)\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/wycats/handlebars.js/issues/1495)\n- [NPM Security Advisory](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/755)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-471",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-HANDLEBARS-174183",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in handlebars"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "handlebars@4.0.11"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: handlebars\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, tap@11.1.5 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-reports@1.4.0 › handlebars@4.0.11\n# Overview\n[handlebars](https://www.npmjs.com/package/handlebars) is an extension to the Mustache templating language.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. A Prototype Pollution allowing Remote Code Execution can be exploited using the constructor, via the 'lookup' helper.\r\nThis vulnerability is due to an incomplete fix for: `SNYK-JS-HANDLEBARS-173692`\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `handlebars` to version 3.0.7, 4.1.2, 4.0.14 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/wycats/handlebars.js/commit/cd38583216dce3252831916323202749431c773e)\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/wycats/handlebars.js/issues/1495)\n- [SNYK-JS-HANDLEBARS-173692](https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-HANDLEBARS-173692)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-471",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-HANDLEBARS-469063",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in handlebars"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2019-19919) handlebars@4.0.11"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: handlebars\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, tap@11.1.5 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-reports@1.4.0 › handlebars@4.0.11\n# Overview\n\n[handlebars](https://www.npmjs.com/package/handlebars) is a extension to the Mustache templating language.\n\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution.\nTemplates may alter an Object's `__proto__` and `__defineGetter__` properties, which may allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the server through crafted payloads.\n\n# Details\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\r\n\r\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\r\n\r\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\r\n \r\n- Property definition by path\r\n \r\n\r\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\r\n\r\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\r\n```\r\nmerge (target, source)\r\n\r\n foreach property of source\r\n\r\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\r\n\r\n merge(target[property], source[property])\r\n\r\n else\r\n\r\n target[property] = source[property]\r\n```\r\n<br> \r\n\r\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\r\n\r\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\r\n\r\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\r\n\r\n## Property definition by path\r\n\r\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\r\n\r\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\r\n\r\n# Types of attacks\r\n\r\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\r\n\r\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\r\n|--|--|--|\r\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\r\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\r\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\r\n\r\n# Affected environments\r\n\r\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\r\n\r\n- Application server\r\n \r\n- Web server\r\n \r\n\r\n# How to prevent\r\n\r\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\r\n \r\n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\r\n \r\n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\r\n \r\n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\r\n \r\n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\r\n\r\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\r\n\r\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\n\nUpgrade `handlebars` to version 4.3.0, 3.8.0 or higher.\n\n\n# References\n\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/wycats/handlebars.js/commit/213c0bbe3c4bd83a534d67384e5afa0000347ff6)\n\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/wycats/handlebars.js/commit/7b67a29a8c926b38af265c727ff6551fbb277111)\n\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/wycats/handlebars.js/issues/1558)\n\n- [Reference](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/1164)\n\n- [Release Notes](https://github.com/wycats/handlebars.js/blob/master/release-notes.md#v430---september-24th-2019)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-471",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-HANDLEBARS-480388",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability in handlebars"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "handlebars@4.0.11"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: handlebars\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, tap@11.1.5 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-reports@1.4.0 › handlebars@4.0.11\n# Overview\n[handlebars](https://www.npmjs.com/package/handlebars) is an extension to the Mustache templating language.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS). The package's parser may be forced into an endless loop while processing specially-crafted templates, which may allow attackers to exhaust system resources leading to Denial of Service.\n\n# Details\n\nDenial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.\n\nThe Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.\n\nLet’s take the following regular expression as an example:\n```js\nregex = /A(B|C+)+D/\n```\n\nThis regular expression accomplishes the following:\n- `A` The string must start with the letter 'A'\n- `(B|C+)+` The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the `+` matches one or more times). The `+` at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.\n- `D` Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'\n\nThe expression would match inputs such as `ABBD`, `ABCCCCD`, `ABCBCCCD` and `ACCCCCD`\n\nIt most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:\n\n```bash\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD\")'\n0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total\n\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX\")'\n1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total\n```\n\nThe entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.\n\nMost Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as _catastrophic backtracking_.\n\nLet's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: \"ACCCX\". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:\n1. CCC\n2. CC+C\n3. C+CC\n4. C+C+C.\n\nThe engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use [RegEx 101 debugger](https://regex101.com/debugger) to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.\n\nFrom there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.\n\n| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |\n| -------|-------------:| -----:|\n| ACCCX | 3 | 38\n| ACCCCX | 4 | 71\n| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136\n| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553\n\n\nBy the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `handlebars` to version 4.4.5 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/wycats/handlebars.js/commit/8d5530ee2c3ea9f0aee3fde310b9f36887d00b8b)\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/wycats/handlebars.js/issues/1579)\n- [NPM Security Advisory](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/1300)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-HANDLEBARS-534478",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Arbitrary Code Execution vulnerability in handlebars"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "handlebars@4.0.11"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: handlebars\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, tap@11.1.5 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-reports@1.4.0 › handlebars@4.0.11\n# Overview\n[handlebars](https://www.npmjs.com/package/handlebars) is an extension to the Mustache templating language.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Arbitrary Code Execution. The package's lookup helper doesn't validate templates correctly, allowing attackers to submit templates that execute arbitrary JavaScript in the system.\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `handlebars` to version 4.5.3, 3.0.8 or higher.\n# References\n- [NPM Security Advisory #1](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/1316)\n- [NPM Security Advisory #2](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/1324)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-94",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-HANDLEBARS-534988",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in handlebars"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "handlebars@4.0.11"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: handlebars\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, tap@11.1.5 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-reports@1.4.0 › handlebars@4.0.11\n# Overview\n\n[handlebars](https://www.npmjs.com/package/handlebars) is an extension to the Mustache templating language.\n\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution.\nIt is possible to add or modify properties to the Object prototype through a malicious template. This may allow attackers to crash the application or execute Arbitrary Code in specific conditions.\n\n# Details\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\r\n\r\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\r\n\r\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\r\n \r\n- Property definition by path\r\n \r\n\r\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\r\n\r\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\r\n```\r\nmerge (target, source)\r\n\r\n foreach property of source\r\n\r\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\r\n\r\n merge(target[property], source[property])\r\n\r\n else\r\n\r\n target[property] = source[property]\r\n```\r\n<br> \r\n\r\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\r\n\r\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\r\n\r\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\r\n\r\n## Property definition by path\r\n\r\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\r\n\r\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\r\n\r\n# Types of attacks\r\n\r\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\r\n\r\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\r\n|--|--|--|\r\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\r\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\r\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\r\n\r\n# Affected environments\r\n\r\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\r\n\r\n- Application server\r\n \r\n- Web server\r\n \r\n\r\n# How to prevent\r\n\r\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\r\n \r\n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\r\n \r\n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\r\n \r\n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\r\n \r\n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\r\n\r\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\r\n\r\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\n\nUpgrade `handlebars` to version 4.5.3, 3.0.8 or higher.\n\n\n# References\n\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/wycats/handlebars.js/commit/198887808780bbef9dba67a8af68ece091d5baa7)\n\n- [NPM Security Advisory](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/1325)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-HANDLEBARS-567742",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in handlebars"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "handlebars@4.0.11"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: handlebars\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, tap@11.1.5 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-reports@1.4.0 › handlebars@4.0.11\n# Overview\n[handlebars](https://www.npmjs.com/package/handlebars) is an extension to the Mustache templating language.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. Prototype access to the template engine allows for potential code execution.\n\n# Details\n\nDenial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.\n\nThe Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.\n\nLet’s take the following regular expression as an example:\n```js\nregex = /A(B|C+)+D/\n```\n\nThis regular expression accomplishes the following:\n- `A` The string must start with the letter 'A'\n- `(B|C+)+` The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the `+` matches one or more times). The `+` at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.\n- `D` Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'\n\nThe expression would match inputs such as `ABBD`, `ABCCCCD`, `ABCBCCCD` and `ACCCCCD`\n\nIt most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:\n\n```bash\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD\")'\n0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total\n\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX\")'\n1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total\n```\n\nThe entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.\n\nMost Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as _catastrophic backtracking_.\n\nLet's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: \"ACCCX\". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:\n1. CCC\n2. CC+C\n3. C+CC\n4. C+C+C.\n\nThe engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use [RegEx 101 debugger](https://regex101.com/debugger) to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.\n\nFrom there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.\n\n| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |\n| -------|-------------:| -----:|\n| ACCCX | 3 | 38\n| ACCCCX | 4 | 71\n| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136\n| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553\n\n\nBy the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `handlebars` to version 4.6.0 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/handlebars-lang/handlebars.js/pull/1633)\n- [HackerOne Report](https://hackerone.com/reports/726364)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-HIGHLIGHTJS-1045326",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in highlight.js"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2020-26237) highlight.js@9.18.1"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: highlight.js\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, typeorm@0.2.24 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › typeorm@0.2.24 › cli-highlight@2.1.4 › highlight.js@9.18.1\n# Overview\n[highlight.js](https://www.npmjs.com/package/highlight.js) is a syntax highlighter written in JavaScript. It works in the browser as well as on the server. It works with pretty much any markup, doesn’t depend on any framework, and has automatic language detection.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. A malicious HTML code block can be crafted that will result in prototype pollution of the base object's prototype during highlighting. If you allow users to insert custom HTML code blocks into your page/app via parsing Markdown code blocks (or similar) and do not filter the language names the user can provide you may be vulnerable.\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `highlight.js` to version 9.18.2, 10.1.2 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/highlightjs/highlight.js/commit/7241013ae011a585983e176ddc0489a7a52f6bb0)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/highlightjs/highlight.js/pull/2636)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-HIGHLIGHTJS-1048676",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) vulnerability in highlight.js"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "highlight.js@9.18.1"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: highlight.js\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, typeorm@0.2.24 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › typeorm@0.2.24 › cli-highlight@2.1.4 › highlight.js@9.18.1\n# Overview\n[highlight.js](https://www.npmjs.com/package/highlight.js) is a syntax highlighter written in JavaScript. It works in the browser as well as on the server. It works with pretty much any markup, doesn’t depend on any framework, and has automatic language detection.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via Exponential and Polynomial catastrophic backtracking in multiple language highlighting.\n\n# Details\n\nDenial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.\n\nThe Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.\n\nLet’s take the following regular expression as an example:\n```js\nregex = /A(B|C+)+D/\n```\n\nThis regular expression accomplishes the following:\n- `A` The string must start with the letter 'A'\n- `(B|C+)+` The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the `+` matches one or more times). The `+` at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.\n- `D` Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'\n\nThe expression would match inputs such as `ABBD`, `ABCCCCD`, `ABCBCCCD` and `ACCCCCD`\n\nIt most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:\n\n```bash\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD\")'\n0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total\n\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX\")'\n1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total\n```\n\nThe entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.\n\nMost Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as _catastrophic backtracking_.\n\nLet's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: \"ACCCX\". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:\n1. CCC\n2. CC+C\n3. C+CC\n4. C+C+C.\n\nThe engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use [RegEx 101 debugger](https://regex101.com/debugger) to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.\n\nFrom there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.\n\n| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |\n| -------|-------------:| -----:|\n| ACCCX | 3 | 38\n| ACCCCX | 4 | 71\n| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136\n| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553\n\n\nBy the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `highlight.js` to version 10.4.1 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/highlightjs/highlight.js/commit/373b9d862401162e832ce77305e49b859e110f9c)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-HOSTEDGITINFO-1088355",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) vulnerability in hosted-git-info"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2021-23362) hosted-git-info@2.6.0"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: hosted-git-info\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, tap@11.1.5 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › read-pkg-up@1.0.1 › read-pkg@1.1.0 › normalize-package-data@2.4.0 › hosted-git-info@2.6.0\n# Overview\n[hosted-git-info](https://www.npmjs.org/package/hosted-git-info) is a Provides metadata and conversions from repository urls for Github, Bitbucket and Gitlab\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via regular expression `shortcutMatch ` in the `fromUrl` function in index.js. The affected regular expression exhibits polynomial worst-case time complexity.\r\n\r\n## PoC by Yeting Li\r\n```\r\nvar hostedGitInfo = require(\"hosted-git-info\")\r\nfunction build_attack(n) {\r\n var ret = \"a:\"\r\n for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {\r\n ret += \"a\"\r\n }\r\n return ret + \"!\";\r\n}\r\n\r\nfor(var i = 1; i <= 5000000; i++) {\r\n if (i % 1000 == 0) {\r\n var time = Date.now();\r\n var attack_str = build_attack(i)\r\n var parsedInfo = hostedGitInfo.fromUrl(attack_str)\r\n var time_cost = Date.now() - time;\r\n console.log(\"attack_str.length: \" + attack_str.length + \": \" + time_cost+\" ms\")\r\n}\r\n```\n\n# Details\n\nDenial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.\n\nThe Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.\n\nLet’s take the following regular expression as an example:\n```js\nregex = /A(B|C+)+D/\n```\n\nThis regular expression accomplishes the following:\n- `A` The string must start with the letter 'A'\n- `(B|C+)+` The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the `+` matches one or more times). The `+` at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.\n- `D` Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'\n\nThe expression would match inputs such as `ABBD`, `ABCCCCD`, `ABCBCCCD` and `ACCCCCD`\n\nIt most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:\n\n```bash\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD\")'\n0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total\n\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX\")'\n1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total\n```\n\nThe entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.\n\nMost Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as _catastrophic backtracking_.\n\nLet's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: \"ACCCX\". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:\n1. CCC\n2. CC+C\n3. C+CC\n4. C+C+C.\n\nThe engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use [RegEx 101 debugger](https://regex101.com/debugger) to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.\n\nFrom there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.\n\n| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |\n| -------|-------------:| -----:|\n| ACCCX | 3 | 38\n| ACCCCX | 4 | 71\n| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136\n| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553\n\n\nBy the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `hosted-git-info` to version 3.0.8, 2.8.9 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/npm/hosted-git-info/commit/bede0dc38e1785e732bf0a48ba6f81a4a908eba3)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-INI-1048974",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in ini"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2020-7788) ini@1.3.5"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: ini\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, npmconf@0.0.24 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › npmconf@0.0.24 › config-chain@1.1.12 › ini@1.3.5\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › npmconf@0.0.24 › ini@1.1.0\n# Overview\n[ini](https://www.npmjs.org/package/ini) is an An ini encoder/decoder for node\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. If an attacker submits a malicious INI file to an application that parses it with `ini.parse`, they will pollute the prototype on the application. This can be exploited further depending on the context.\r\n\r\n# PoC by Eugene Lim\r\n\r\npayload.ini\r\n```\r\n[__proto__]\r\npolluted = \"polluted\"\r\n```\r\n\r\npoc.js:\r\n```\r\nvar fs = require('fs')\r\nvar ini = require('ini')\r\n\r\nvar parsed = ini.parse(fs.readFileSync('./payload.ini', 'utf-8'))\r\nconsole.log(parsed)\r\nconsole.log(parsed.__proto__)\r\nconsole.log(polluted)\r\n```\r\n\r\n```\r\n> node poc.js\r\n{}\r\n{ polluted: 'polluted' }\r\n{ polluted: 'polluted' }\r\npolluted\r\n```\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `ini` to version 1.3.6 or higher.\n# References\n- [Eugene Lim - Research Blog Post](https://medium.com/csg-govtech/supply-chain-pollution-discovering-a-16-million-download-week-node-js-2fa4d2c27cf7)\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/npm/ini/commit/56d2805e07ccd94e2ba0984ac9240ff02d44b6f1)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-JQUERY-174006",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in jquery"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2019-11358,CVE-2019-5428) jquery@2.2.4"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: jquery\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and jquery@2.2.4\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › jquery@2.2.4\n# Overview\n[jquery](https://www.npmjs.com/package/jquery) is a package that makes things like HTML document traversal and manipulation, event handling, animation, and Ajax much simpler with an easy-to-use API that works across a multitude of browsers.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The `extend` function can be tricked into modifying the prototype of `Object` when the attacker controls part of the structure passed to this function. This can let an attacker add or modify an existing property that will then exist on all objects.\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `jquery` to version 3.4.0 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/753d591aea698e57d6db58c9f722cd0808619b1b)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/4333)\n- [Hackerone Report](https://hackerone.com/reports/454365)\n- [Snyk Blog](https://snyk.io/blog/after-three-years-of-silence-a-new-jquery-prototype-pollution-vulnerability-emerges-once-again/)\n- [Third-Party Backported Patches Repo](https://github.com/DanielRuf/snyk-js-jquery-174006)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-JQUERY-565129",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in jquery"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2020-11023) jquery@2.2.4"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: jquery\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and jquery@2.2.4\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › jquery@2.2.4\n# Overview\n\n[jquery](https://www.npmjs.com/package/jquery) is a package that makes things like HTML document traversal and manipulation, event handling, animation, and Ajax much simpler with an easy-to-use API that works across a multitude of browsers.\n\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS)\nPassing HTML containing `<option>` elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. `.html()`, `.append()`, and others) may execute untrusted code.\n\n# Details\nA cross-site scripting attack occurs when the attacker tricks a legitimate web-based application or site to accept a request as originating from a trusted source.\r\n\r\nThis is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.\r\n\r\nֿInjecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.\r\n\r\nEscaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, `<` can be coded as `<`; and `>` can be coded as `>`; in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses `<` and `>` as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.\r\n \r\nThe most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware. \r\n\r\n## Types of attacks\r\nThere are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:\r\n\r\n|Type|Origin|Description|\r\n|--|--|--|\r\n|**Stored**|Server|The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link.|\r\n|**Reflected**|Server|The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser.| \r\n|**DOM-based**|Client|The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data.|\r\n|**Mutated**| |The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters.|\r\n\r\n## Affected environments\r\nThe following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:\r\n\r\n* Web servers\r\n* Application servers\r\n* Web application environments\r\n\r\n## How to prevent\r\nThis section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code: \r\n\r\n* Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches. \r\n* Convert special characters such as `?`, `&`, `/`, `<`, `>` and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. \r\n* Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.\r\n* Redirect invalid requests.\r\n* Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.\r\n* Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.\r\n* Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.\n\n# Remediation\n\nUpgrade `jquery` to version 3.5.0 or higher.\n\n\n# References\n\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/1d61fd9407e6fbe82fe55cb0b938307aa0791f77)\n\n- [PoC](https://vulnerabledoma.in/jquery_htmlPrefilter_xss.html)\n\n- [Release Notes](https://blog.jquery.com/2020/04/10/jquery-3-5-0-released/)\n\n- [Security Blog](https://masatokinugawa.l0.cm/2020/05/jquery3.5.0-xss.html?spref=tw)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-79",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-JQUERY-567880",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in jquery"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2020-11022) jquery@2.2.4"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: jquery\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and jquery@2.2.4\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › jquery@2.2.4\n# Overview\n\n[jquery](https://www.npmjs.com/package/jquery) is a package that makes things like HTML document traversal and manipulation, event handling, animation, and Ajax much simpler with an easy-to-use API that works across a multitude of browsers.\n\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS).\nPassing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. `.html(), .append()`, and others) may execute untrusted code.\n\n\n# Details:\nA cross-site scripting attack occurs when the attacker tricks a legitimate web-based application or site to accept a request as originating from a trusted source.\r\n\r\nThis is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.\r\n\r\nֿInjecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.\r\n\r\nEscaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, `<` can be coded as `<`; and `>` can be coded as `>`; in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses `<` and `>` as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.\r\n \r\nThe most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware. \r\n\r\n## Types of attacks\r\nThere are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:\r\n\r\n|Type|Origin|Description|\r\n|--|--|--|\r\n|**Stored**|Server|The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link.|\r\n|**Reflected**|Server|The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser.| \r\n|**DOM-based**|Client|The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data.|\r\n|**Mutated**| |The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters.|\r\n\r\n## Affected environments\r\nThe following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:\r\n\r\n* Web servers\r\n* Application servers\r\n* Web application environments\r\n\r\n## How to prevent\r\nThis section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code: \r\n\r\n* Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches. \r\n* Convert special characters such as `?`, `&`, `/`, `<`, `>` and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. \r\n* Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.\r\n* Redirect invalid requests.\r\n* Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.\r\n* Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.\r\n* Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.\n\n\n# Remediation\n\nUpgrade `jquery` to version 3.5.0 or higher.\n\n\n# References\n\n- [GHSA](https://github.com/jquery/jquery/security/advisories/GHSA-gxr4-xjj5-5px2)\n\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/1d61fd9407e6fbe82fe55cb0b938307aa0791f77)\n\n- [JQuery 3.5.0 Release](https://blog.jquery.com/2020/04/10/jquery-3-5-0-released/)\n\n- [JQuery Upgrade Guide](https://jquery.com/upgrade-guide/3.5/)\n\n- [PoC](https://vulnerabledoma.in/jquery_htmlPrefilter_xss.html)\n\n- [Security Blog](https://mksben.l0.cm/2020/05/jquery3.5.0-xss.html)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-79",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "npm:jquery:20150627",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in jquery"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2015-9251,CVE-2017-16012) jquery@2.2.4"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: jquery\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and jquery@2.2.4\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › jquery@2.2.4\n# Overview\n\n[jquery](https://www.npmjs.com/package/jquery) is a package that makes things like HTML document traversal and manipulation, event handling, animation, and Ajax much simpler with an easy-to-use API that works across a multitude of browsers.\n\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS)\nattacks when a cross-domain ajax request is performed without the `dataType` option causing `text/javascript` responses to be executed.\n\n# Details\n A cross-site scripting attack occurs when the attacker tricks a legitimate web-based application or site to accept a request as originating from a trusted source.\r\n\r\nThis is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.\r\n\r\nֿInjecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.\r\n\r\nEscaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, `<` can be coded as `<`; and `>` can be coded as `>`; in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses `<` and `>` as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.\r\n \r\nThe most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware. \r\n\r\n## Types of attacks\r\nThere are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:\r\n\r\n|Type|Origin|Description|\r\n|--|--|--|\r\n|**Stored**|Server|The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link.|\r\n|**Reflected**|Server|The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser.| \r\n|**DOM-based**|Client|The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data.|\r\n|**Mutated**| |The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters.|\r\n\r\n## Affected environments\r\nThe following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:\r\n\r\n* Web servers\r\n* Application servers\r\n* Web application environments\r\n\r\n## How to prevent\r\nThis section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code: \r\n\r\n* Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches. \r\n* Convert special characters such as `?`, `&`, `/`, `<`, `>` and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. \r\n* Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.\r\n* Redirect invalid requests.\r\n* Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.\r\n* Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.\r\n* Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.\n\n\n# Remediation\n\nUpgrade `jquery` to version 1.12.2, 2.2.2, 3.0.0 or higher.\n\n\n# References\n\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/f60729f3903d17917dc351f3ac87794de379b0cc)\n\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/2588/commits/c254d308a7d3f1eac4d0b42837804cfffcba4bb2)\n\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/jquery/jquery/issues/2432)\n\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/2588)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-79",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-KERBEROS-568900",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - DLL Injection vulnerability in kerberos"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2020-13110) kerberos@0.0.24"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: kerberos\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, mongoose@4.2.4 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › mongoose@4.2.4 › mongodb@2.0.46 › mongodb-core@1.2.19 › kerberos@0.0.24\n# Overview\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to DLL Injection. An attacker can execute arbitrary code by creating a file with the same name in a folder that precedes the intended file in the DLL path search.\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `kerberos` to version 1.0.0 or higher.\n# References\n- [NPM Security Advisory](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/1514)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-114",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-KINDOF-537849",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Low severity - Validation Bypass vulnerability in kind-of"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2019-20149) kind-of@6.0.2"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: kind-of\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1, tap@11.1.5 and others\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › use@3.1.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › use@3.1.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › use@3.1.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › use@3.1.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › use@3.1.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon-node@2.1.1 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › use@3.1.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › use@3.1.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › use@3.1.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › use@3.1.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon-node@2.1.1 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon-node@2.1.1 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon-node@2.1.1 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › use@3.1.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon-node@2.1.1 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon-node@2.1.1 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › braces@2.3.2 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › nanomatch@1.2.9 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › to-regex@3.0.2 › define-property@2.0.2 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-accessor-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › test-exclude@4.2.1 › micromatch@3.1.10 › extglob@2.0.4 › expand-brackets@2.1.4 › snapdragon@0.8.2 › base@0.11.2 › define-property@1.0.0 › is-descriptor@1.0.2 › is-data-descriptor@1.0.0 › kind-of@6.0.2\n# Overview\n[kind-of](https://github.com/jonschlinkert/kind-of) is a package that gets the native type of a value.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Validation Bypass. It leverages the built-in constructor of unsafe user-input to detect type information. However, a crafted payload can overwrite this built in attribute to manipulate the type detection result.\r\n\r\n# PoC by Feng Xiao\r\n```\r\nvar kindOf = require('kind-of');\r\n\r\n\r\nvar user_input = {\r\n user: 'barney',\r\n age: 36,\r\n active: true,\r\n \"constructor\":{\"name\":\"Symbol\"}\r\n};\r\nconsole.log(kindOf(user_input));\r\n```\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `kind-of` to version 6.0.3 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/jonschlinkert/kind-of/issues/30)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/jonschlinkert/kind-of/pull/31)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-20",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-LODASH-1018905",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) vulnerability in lodash"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2020-28500) lodash@4.17.4"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: lodash\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and lodash@4.17.4\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › lodash@4.17.4\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n# Overview\n[lodash](https://www.npmjs.com/package/lodash) is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the `toNumber`, `trim` and `trimEnd` functions.\r\n\r\n## POC\r\n```\r\nvar lo = require('lodash');\r\n\r\nfunction build_blank (n) {\r\nvar ret = \"1\"\r\nfor (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {\r\nret += \" \"\r\n}\r\n\r\nreturn ret + \"1\";\r\n}\r\n\r\nvar s = build_blank(50000)\r\nvar time0 = Date.now();\r\nlo.trim(s)\r\nvar time_cost0 = Date.now() - time0;\r\nconsole.log(\"time_cost0: \" + time_cost0)\r\n\r\nvar time1 = Date.now();\r\nlo.toNumber(s)\r\nvar time_cost1 = Date.now() - time1;\r\nconsole.log(\"time_cost1: \" + time_cost1)\r\n\r\nvar time2 = Date.now();\r\nlo.trimEnd(s)\r\nvar time_cost2 = Date.now() - time2;\r\nconsole.log(\"time_cost2: \" + time_cost2)\r\n```\n\n# Details\n\nDenial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.\n\nThe Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.\n\nLet’s take the following regular expression as an example:\n```js\nregex = /A(B|C+)+D/\n```\n\nThis regular expression accomplishes the following:\n- `A` The string must start with the letter 'A'\n- `(B|C+)+` The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the `+` matches one or more times). The `+` at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.\n- `D` Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'\n\nThe expression would match inputs such as `ABBD`, `ABCCCCD`, `ABCBCCCD` and `ACCCCCD`\n\nIt most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:\n\n```bash\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD\")'\n0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total\n\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX\")'\n1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total\n```\n\nThe entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.\n\nMost Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as _catastrophic backtracking_.\n\nLet's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: \"ACCCX\". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:\n1. CCC\n2. CC+C\n3. C+CC\n4. C+C+C.\n\nThe engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use [RegEx 101 debugger](https://regex101.com/debugger) to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.\n\nFrom there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.\n\n| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |\n| -------|-------------:| -----:|\n| ACCCX | 3 | 38\n| ACCCCX | 4 | 71\n| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136\n| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553\n\n\nBy the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `lodash` to version 4.17.21 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/commit/c4847ebe7d14540bb28a8b932a9ce1b9ecbfee1a)\n- [GitHub Fix PR](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/pull/5065)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-LODASH-1040724",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Command Injection vulnerability in lodash"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2021-23337) lodash@4.17.4"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: lodash\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and lodash@4.17.4\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › lodash@4.17.4\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n# Overview\n[lodash](https://www.npmjs.com/package/lodash) is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Command Injection via `template`.\r\n\r\n## PoC\r\n```\r\nvar _ = require('lodash');\r\n\r\n_.template('', { variable: '){console.log(process.env)}; with(obj' })()\r\n```\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `lodash` to version 4.17.21 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/commit/3469357cff396a26c363f8c1b5a91dde28ba4b1c)\n- [Vulnerable Code](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/blob/ddfd9b11a0126db2302cb70ec9973b66baec0975/lodash.js#L14851)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-78",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-LODASH-450202",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in lodash"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2019-10744) lodash@4.17.4"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: lodash\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and lodash@4.17.4\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › lodash@4.17.4\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n# Overview\n[lodash](https://www.npmjs.com/package/lodash) is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The function `defaultsDeep` could be tricked into adding or modifying properties of `Object.prototype` using a `constructor` payload.\r\n\r\n# PoC by Snyk\r\n```\r\nconst mergeFn = require('lodash').defaultsDeep;\r\nconst payload = '{\"constructor\": {\"prototype\": {\"a0\": true}}}'\r\n\r\nfunction check() {\r\n mergeFn({}, JSON.parse(payload));\r\n if (({})[`a0`] === true) {\r\n console.log(`Vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via ${payload}`);\r\n }\r\n }\r\n\r\ncheck();\r\n```\r\n\r\nFor more information, check out our [blog post](https://snyk.io/blog/snyk-research-team-discovers-severe-prototype-pollution-security-vulnerabilities-affecting-all-versions-of-lodash/)\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `lodash` to version 4.17.12 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/issues/4348)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/pull/4336)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/pull/4355)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/sailshq/lodash/pull/1)\n- [Node Security Advisory](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/1065)\n- [Snyk Blog](https://snyk.io/blog/snyk-research-team-discovers-severe-prototype-pollution-security-vulnerabilities-affecting-all-versions-of-lodash/)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-LODASH-567746",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in lodash"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2020-8203) lodash@4.17.4"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: lodash\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and lodash@4.17.4\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › lodash@4.17.4\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n# Overview\n[lodash](https://www.npmjs.com/package/lodash) is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The function `zipObjectDeep` can be tricked into adding or modifying properties of the Object prototype. These properties will be present on all objects.\r\n\r\n# PoC\r\n```\r\nconst _ = require('lodash');\r\n_.zipObjectDeep(['__proto__.z'],[123])\r\nconsole.log(z) // 123\r\n```\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `lodash` to version 4.17.16 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/pull/4759)\n- [HackerOne Report](https://hackerone.com/reports/712065)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-LODASH-590103",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in lodash"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "lodash@4.17.4"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: lodash\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and lodash@4.17.4\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › lodash@4.17.4\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n# Overview\n[lodash](https://www.npmjs.com/package/lodash) is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution in `zipObjectDeep` due to an incomplete fix for [CVE-2020-8203](https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-LODASH-567746).\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `lodash` to version 4.17.20 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/issues/4874)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-LODASH-608086",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in lodash"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "lodash@4.17.4"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: lodash\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and lodash@4.17.4\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › lodash@4.17.4\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n# Overview\n[lodash](https://www.npmjs.com/package/lodash) is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the `setWith` and `set` functions.\r\n\r\n## PoC by awarau\r\n* Create a JS file with this contents:\r\n```\r\nlod = require('lodash')\r\nlod.setWith({}, \"__proto__[test]\", \"123\")\r\nlod.set({}, \"__proto__[test2]\", \"456\")\r\nconsole.log(Object.prototype)\r\n```\r\n* Execute it with `node`\r\n* Observe that `test` and `test2` is now in the `Object.prototype`.\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `lodash` to version 4.17.17 or higher.\n# References\n- [HackerOne Report](https://hackerone.com/reports/864701)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-LODASH-73638",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in lodash"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2018-16487) lodash@4.17.4"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: lodash\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and lodash@4.17.4\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › lodash@4.17.4\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n# Overview\n[lodash](https://www.npmjs.com/package/lodash) is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The functions `merge`, `mergeWith`, and `defaultsDeep` could be tricked into adding or modifying properties of `Object.prototype`. This is due to an incomplete fix to `CVE-2018-3721`.\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `lodash` to version 4.17.11 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/commit/90e6199a161b6445b01454517b40ef65ebecd2ad)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/pull/4337)\n- [HackerOne Report](https://hackerone.com/reports/380873)\n- [NPM Security Advisory](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/1066)\n- [NPM Security Advisory](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/1068)\n- [NPM Security Advisory](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/1071)\n- [NPM Security Advisory](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/782)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-LODASH-73639",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) vulnerability in lodash"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2019-1010266) lodash@4.17.4"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: lodash\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and lodash@4.17.4\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › lodash@4.17.4\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-generator@6.26.1 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › tap@11.1.5 › nyc@11.9.0 › istanbul-lib-instrument@1.10.1 › babel-template@6.26.0 › babel-traverse@6.26.0 › babel-types@6.26.0 › lodash@4.17.10\n# Overview\n[lodash](https://www.npmjs.com/package/lodash) is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). It parses dates using regex strings, which may cause a slowdown of 2 seconds per 50k characters.\n\n# Details\n\nDenial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.\n\nThe Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.\n\nLet’s take the following regular expression as an example:\n```js\nregex = /A(B|C+)+D/\n```\n\nThis regular expression accomplishes the following:\n- `A` The string must start with the letter 'A'\n- `(B|C+)+` The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the `+` matches one or more times). The `+` at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.\n- `D` Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'\n\nThe expression would match inputs such as `ABBD`, `ABCCCCD`, `ABCBCCCD` and `ACCCCCD`\n\nIt most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:\n\n```bash\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD\")'\n0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total\n\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX\")'\n1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total\n```\n\nThe entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.\n\nMost Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as _catastrophic backtracking_.\n\nLet's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: \"ACCCX\". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:\n1. CCC\n2. CC+C\n3. C+CC\n4. C+C+C.\n\nThe engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use [RegEx 101 debugger](https://regex101.com/debugger) to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.\n\nFrom there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.\n\n| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |\n| -------|-------------:| -----:|\n| ACCCX | 3 | 38\n| ACCCCX | 4 | 71\n| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136\n| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553\n\n\nBy the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `lodash` to version 4.17.11 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/commit/5c08f18d365b64063bfbfa686cbb97cdd6267347)\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/issues/3359)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/pull/4450)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-185",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "npm:lodash:20180130",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in lodash"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2018-3721) lodash@4.17.4"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: lodash\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and lodash@4.17.4\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › lodash@4.17.4\n# Overview\n[lodash](https://www.npmjs.com/package/lodash) is a modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance, & extras.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The utilities function allow modification of the `Object` prototype. If an attacker can control part of the structure passed to this function, they could add or modify an existing property. \r\n\r\n# PoC by Olivier Arteau (HoLyVieR)\r\n```js\r\nvar _= require('lodash');\r\nvar malicious_payload = '{\"__proto__\":{\"oops\":\"It works !\"}}';\r\n\r\nvar a = {};\r\nconsole.log(\"Before : \" + a.oops);\r\n_.merge({}, JSON.parse(malicious_payload));\r\nconsole.log(\"After : \" + a.oops);\r\n```\n\n# Details\n\nPrototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as `_proto_`, `constructor` and `prototype`. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the `Object.prototype` are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.\n\nThere are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:\n\n- Unsafe `Object` recursive merge\n \n- Property definition by path\n \n\n## Unsafe Object recursive merge\n\nThe logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:\n```\nmerge (target, source)\n\n foreach property of source\n\n if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source\n\n merge(target[property], source[property])\n\n else\n\n target[property] = source[property]\n```\n<br> \n\nWhen the source object contains a property named `_proto_` defined with `Object.defineProperty()` , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of `Object` and the source of `Object` as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the `Object` prototype.\n\nClone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: `merge({},source)`.\n\n`lodash` and `Hoek` are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.\n\n## Property definition by path\n\nThere are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: `theFunction(object, path, value)`\n\nIf the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to `_proto_.myValue`. `myValue` is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.\n\n# Types of attacks\n\nThere are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:\n\n| Type |Origin |Short description |\n|--|--|--|\n| **Denial of service (DoS)**|Client |This is the most likely attack. <br>DoS occurs when `Object` holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, `toString` and `valueOf`). <br> The attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` and alters its state to an unexpected value such as `Int` or `Object`. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. <br>**For example:** if an attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.toString` by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on `someobject.toString()` it would fail. |\n |**Remote Code Execution**|Client|Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation.<br>**For example:** `eval(someobject.someattr)`. In this case, if the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.someattr` they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code.|\n|**Property Injection**|Client|The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens.<br> **For example:** if a codebase checks privileges for `someuser.isAdmin`, then when the attacker pollutes `Object.prototype.isAdmin` and sets it to equal `true`, they can then achieve admin privileges.|\n\n# Affected environments\n\nThe following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:\n\n- Application server\n \n- Web server\n \n\n# How to prevent\n\n1. Freeze the prototype— use `Object.freeze (Object.prototype)`.\n \n2. Require schema validation of JSON input.\n \n3. Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.\n \n4. Consider using objects without prototypes (for example, `Object.create(null)`), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.\n \n5. As a best practice use `Map` instead of `Object`.\n\n## For more information on this vulnerability type:\n\n[Arteau, Oliver. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018](https://github.com/HoLyVieR/prototype-pollution-nsec18/blob/master/paper/JavaScript_prototype_pollution_attack_in_NodeJS.pdf)\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `lodash` to version 4.17.5 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/commit/d8e069cc3410082e44eb18fcf8e7f3d08ebe1d4a)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/lodash/lodash/pull/4337)\n- [HackerOne Report](https://hackerone.com/reports/310443)\n- [NPM Security Advisory](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/1067)\n- [NPM Security Advisory](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/1069)\n- [NPM Security Advisory](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/1070)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-MARKED-174116",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) vulnerability in marked"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "marked@0.3.5"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: marked\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and marked@0.3.5\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › marked@0.3.5\n# Overview\n[marked](https://marked.js.org/) is a low-level compiler for parsing markdown without caching or blocking for long periods of time.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). The `inline.text regex` may take quadratic time to scan for potential email addresses starting at every point.\n\n# Details\n\nDenial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.\n\nThe Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.\n\nLet’s take the following regular expression as an example:\n```js\nregex = /A(B|C+)+D/\n```\n\nThis regular expression accomplishes the following:\n- `A` The string must start with the letter 'A'\n- `(B|C+)+` The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the `+` matches one or more times). The `+` at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.\n- `D` Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'\n\nThe expression would match inputs such as `ABBD`, `ABCCCCD`, `ABCBCCCD` and `ACCCCCD`\n\nIt most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:\n\n```bash\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD\")'\n0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total\n\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX\")'\n1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total\n```\n\nThe entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.\n\nMost Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as _catastrophic backtracking_.\n\nLet's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: \"ACCCX\". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:\n1. CCC\n2. CC+C\n3. C+CC\n4. C+C+C.\n\nThe engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use [RegEx 101 debugger](https://regex101.com/debugger) to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.\n\nFrom there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.\n\n| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |\n| -------|-------------:| -----:|\n| ACCCX | 3 | 38\n| ACCCCX | 4 | 71\n| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136\n| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553\n\n\nBy the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `marked` to version 0.6.2 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/markedjs/marked/commit/00f1f7a23916ef27186d0904635aa3509af63d47)\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/markedjs/marked/pull/1460/commits/be27472a8169dda7875330939f8115ab677cdc07)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/markedjs/marked/pull/1460)\n- [NPM Security Advisory](https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/812)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-MARKED-451540",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) vulnerability in marked"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "marked@0.3.5"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: marked\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and marked@0.3.5\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › marked@0.3.5\n# Overview\n[marked](https://marked.js.org/) is a low-level compiler for parsing markdown without caching or blocking for long periods of time.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). A Denial of Service condition could be triggered through exploitation of the `heading` regex.\n\n# Details\n\nDenial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.\n\nThe Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.\n\nLet’s take the following regular expression as an example:\n```js\nregex = /A(B|C+)+D/\n```\n\nThis regular expression accomplishes the following:\n- `A` The string must start with the letter 'A'\n- `(B|C+)+` The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the `+` matches one or more times). The `+` at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.\n- `D` Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'\n\nThe expression would match inputs such as `ABBD`, `ABCCCCD`, `ABCBCCCD` and `ACCCCCD`\n\nIt most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:\n\n```bash\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD\")'\n0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total\n\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX\")'\n1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total\n```\n\nThe entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.\n\nMost Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as _catastrophic backtracking_.\n\nLet's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: \"ACCCX\". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:\n1. CCC\n2. CC+C\n3. C+CC\n4. C+C+C.\n\nThe engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use [RegEx 101 debugger](https://regex101.com/debugger) to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.\n\nFrom there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.\n\n| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |\n| -------|-------------:| -----:|\n| ACCCX | 3 | 38\n| ACCCCX | 4 | 71\n| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136\n| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553\n\n\nBy the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `marked` to version 0.4.0 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/markedjs/marked/commit/09afabf69c6d0c919c03443f47bdfe476566105d)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/markedjs/marked/pull/1224)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-MARKED-584281",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS ) vulnerability in marked"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "marked@0.3.5"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: marked\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and marked@0.3.5\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › marked@0.3.5\n# Overview\n[marked](https://marked.js.org/) is a low-level compiler for parsing markdown without caching or blocking for long periods of time.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS ). The `em` regex within `src/rules.js` file have multiple unused capture groups which could lead to a denial of service attack if user input is reachable.\n\n# Details\n\nDenial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.\n\nThe Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.\n\nLet’s take the following regular expression as an example:\n```js\nregex = /A(B|C+)+D/\n```\n\nThis regular expression accomplishes the following:\n- `A` The string must start with the letter 'A'\n- `(B|C+)+` The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the `+` matches one or more times). The `+` at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.\n- `D` Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'\n\nThe expression would match inputs such as `ABBD`, `ABCCCCD`, `ABCBCCCD` and `ACCCCCD`\n\nIt most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:\n\n```bash\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD\")'\n0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total\n\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX\")'\n1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total\n```\n\nThe entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.\n\nMost Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as _catastrophic backtracking_.\n\nLet's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: \"ACCCX\". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:\n1. CCC\n2. CC+C\n3. C+CC\n4. C+C+C.\n\nThe engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use [RegEx 101 debugger](https://regex101.com/debugger) to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.\n\nFrom there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.\n\n| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |\n| -------|-------------:| -----:|\n| ACCCX | 3 | 38\n| ACCCCX | 4 | 71\n| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136\n| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553\n\n\nBy the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `marked` to version 1.1.1 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/markedjs/marked/commit/bd4f8c464befad2b304d51e33e89e567326e62e0)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "npm:marked:20150520",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in marked"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2016-10531) marked@0.3.5"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: marked\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and marked@0.3.5\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › marked@0.3.5\n# Overview\n[marked](https://marked.js.org/) is a low-level compiler for parsing markdown without caching or blocking for long periods of time.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS). An attacker could bypass its output sanitization (`sanitize: true`) protection. Using the [HTML Coded Character Set](https://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_13.html#SEC13), attackers can inject `javascript:` code snippets into the output. For example, the following input `javascript֍ocument;alert(1)` will result in `alert(1)` being executed when the user clicks on the link.\n# Details\n\nA cross-site scripting attack occurs when the attacker tricks a legitimate web-based application or site to accept a request as originating from a trusted source.\n\nThis is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.\n\nInjecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.\n\nEscaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, `<` can be coded as `<`; and `>` can be coded as `>`; in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses `<` and `>` as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.\n \nThe most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware. \n\n## Types of attacks\nThere are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:\n\n|Type|Origin|Description|\n|--|--|--|\n|**Stored**|Server|The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link.|\n|**Reflected**|Server|The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser.| \n|**DOM-based**|Client|The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data.|\n|**Mutated**| |The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters.|\n\n## Affected environments\nThe following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:\n\n* Web servers\n* Application servers\n* Web application environments\n\n## How to prevent\nThis section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code: \n\n* Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches. \n* Convert special characters such as `?`, `&`, `/`, `<`, `>` and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. \n* Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.\n* Redirect invalid requests.\n* Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.\n* Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.\n* Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `marked` to version 0.3.6 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/chjj/marked/pull/592/commits/2cff85979be8e7a026a9aca35542c470cf5da523)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/chjj/marked/pull/592)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-79",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "npm:marked:20170112",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in marked"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2017-1000427) marked@0.3.5"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: marked\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and marked@0.3.5\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › marked@0.3.5\n# Overview\n[marked](https://marked.js.org/) is a low-level compiler for parsing markdown without caching or blocking for long periods of time.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS). Data URIs enable embedding small files in line in HTML documents, provided in the URL itself.\r\nAttackers can craft malicious web pages containing either HTML or script code that utilizes the data URI scheme, allowing them to bypass access controls or steal sensitive information.\r\n\r\nAn example of data URI used to deliver javascript code. The data holds `<script>alert('XSS')</script>` tag in base64 encoded format.\r\n```html\r\n[xss link](data:text/html;base64,PHNjcmlwdD5hbGVydCgnWFNTJyk8L3NjcmlwdD4K)\r\n```\n# Details\n\nA cross-site scripting attack occurs when the attacker tricks a legitimate web-based application or site to accept a request as originating from a trusted source.\n\nThis is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.\n\nInjecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.\n\nEscaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, `<` can be coded as `<`; and `>` can be coded as `>`; in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses `<` and `>` as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.\n \nThe most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware. \n\n## Types of attacks\nThere are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:\n\n|Type|Origin|Description|\n|--|--|--|\n|**Stored**|Server|The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link.|\n|**Reflected**|Server|The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser.| \n|**DOM-based**|Client|The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data.|\n|**Mutated**| |The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters.|\n\n## Affected environments\nThe following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:\n\n* Web servers\n* Application servers\n* Web application environments\n\n## How to prevent\nThis section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code: \n\n* Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches. \n* Convert special characters such as `?`, `&`, `/`, `<`, `>` and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. \n* Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.\n* Redirect invalid requests.\n* Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.\n* Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.\n* Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `marked` to version 0.3.7 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/chjj/marked/commit/cd2f6f5b7091154c5526e79b5f3bfb4d15995a51)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-79",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "npm:marked:20170815",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in marked"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "marked@0.3.5"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: marked\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and marked@0.3.5\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › marked@0.3.5\n# Overview\n[marked](https://marked.js.org/) is a low-level compiler for parsing markdown without caching or blocking for long periods of time.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS). Browsers support both lowercase and uppercase x in hexadecimal form of HTML character entity, but marked [unescaped only lowercase](https://github.com/chjj/marked/blob/v0.3.7/lib/marked.js#L1096-L1108).\r\n\r\nThis may allow an attacker to create a link with javascript code.\r\n\r\nFor example:\r\n```js\r\nvar marked = require('marked');\r\nmarked.setOptions({\r\n renderer: new marked.Renderer(),\r\n sanitize: true\r\n});\r\n\r\ntext = `\r\nlower[click me](javascript:...)lower\r\nupper[click me](javascript:...)upper\r\n`;\r\n\r\nconsole.log(marked(text));\r\n```\r\n\r\nwill render the following:\r\n\r\n```html\r\n<p>lowerlower\r\nupper<a href=\"javascript:...\">click me</a>upper</p>\r\n\r\n```\n# Details\n\nA cross-site scripting attack occurs when the attacker tricks a legitimate web-based application or site to accept a request as originating from a trusted source.\n\nThis is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.\n\nInjecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.\n\nEscaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, `<` can be coded as `<`; and `>` can be coded as `>`; in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses `<` and `>` as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.\n \nThe most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware. \n\n## Types of attacks\nThere are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:\n\n|Type|Origin|Description|\n|--|--|--|\n|**Stored**|Server|The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link.|\n|**Reflected**|Server|The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser.| \n|**DOM-based**|Client|The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data.|\n|**Mutated**| |The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters.|\n\n## Affected environments\nThe following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:\n\n* Web servers\n* Application servers\n* Web application environments\n\n## How to prevent\nThis section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code: \n\n* Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches. \n* Convert special characters such as `?`, `&`, `/`, `<`, `>` and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. \n* Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.\n* Redirect invalid requests.\n* Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.\n* Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.\n* Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `marked` to version 0.3.9 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/markedjs/marked/pull/976/commits/6d1901ff71abb83aa32ca9a5ce47471382ea42a9)\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/chjj/marked/issues/925)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/chjj/marked/pull/958)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-79",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "npm:marked:20170815-1",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in marked"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "marked@0.3.5"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: marked\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and marked@0.3.5\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › marked@0.3.5\n# Overview\n[marked](https://marked.js.org/) is a low-level compiler for parsing markdown without caching or blocking for long periods of time.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS). When mangling is disabled via option `mangle`, marked doesn't escape target `href`. This may allow an attacker to inject arbitrary `html-event` into resulting a tag.\r\n\r\nFor example:\r\n```js\r\nvar marked = require('marked');\r\nmarked.setOptions({\r\n renderer: new marked.Renderer(),\r\n sanitize: true,\r\n mangle: false\r\n});\r\n\r\ntext = `\r\n<bar\"onclick=\"alert('XSS')\"@foo>\r\n`;\r\n\r\nconsole.log(marked(text));\r\n```\r\n\r\nwill render:\r\n\r\n```html\r\n<p><a href=\"mailto:bar\"onclick=\"alert('XSS')\"@foo\">bar\"onclick=\"alert('XSS')\"@foo</a></p>\r\n```\n# Details\n\nA cross-site scripting attack occurs when the attacker tricks a legitimate web-based application or site to accept a request as originating from a trusted source.\n\nThis is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.\n\nInjecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.\n\nEscaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, `<` can be coded as `<`; and `>` can be coded as `>`; in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses `<` and `>` as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.\n \nThe most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware. \n\n## Types of attacks\nThere are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:\n\n|Type|Origin|Description|\n|--|--|--|\n|**Stored**|Server|The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link.|\n|**Reflected**|Server|The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser.| \n|**DOM-based**|Client|The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data.|\n|**Mutated**| |The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters.|\n\n## Affected environments\nThe following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:\n\n* Web servers\n* Application servers\n* Web application environments\n\n## How to prevent\nThis section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code: \n\n* Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches. \n* Convert special characters such as `?`, `&`, `/`, `<`, `>` and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. \n* Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.\n* Redirect invalid requests.\n* Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.\n* Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.\n* Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `marked` to version 0.3.9 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/markedjs/marked/pull/976/commits/cb72584c5d9d32ebfdbb99e35fb9b81af2b79686)\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/chjj/marked/issues/926)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/chjj/marked/pull/958)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-79",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "npm:marked:20170907",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) vulnerability in marked"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2017-16114) marked@0.3.5"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: marked\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and marked@0.3.5\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › marked@0.3.5\n# Overview\n\n[marked](https://marked.js.org/) is a low-level compiler for parsing markdown without caching or blocking for long periods of time.\n\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS)\nwhen parsing the input markdown content (1,000 characters costs around 6 seconds matching time).\n\n# Details\nDenial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.\r\n\r\nThe Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.\r\n\r\nLet’s take the following regular expression as an example:\r\n```js\r\nregex = /A(B|C+)+D/\r\n```\r\n\r\nThis regular expression accomplishes the following:\r\n- `A` The string must start with the letter 'A'\r\n- `(B|C+)+` The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the `+` matches one or more times). The `+` at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.\r\n- `D` Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'\r\n\r\nThe expression would match inputs such as `ABBD`, `ABCCCCD`, `ABCBCCCD` and `ACCCCCD`\r\n\r\nIt most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:\r\n\r\n```bash\r\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD\")'\r\n0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total\r\n\r\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX\")'\r\n1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total\r\n```\r\n\r\nThe entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.\r\n\r\nMost Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as _catastrophic backtracking_.\r\n\r\nLet's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: \"ACCCX\". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:\r\n1. CCC\r\n2. CC+C\r\n3. C+CC\r\n4. C+C+C.\r\n\r\nThe engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use [RegEx 101 debugger](https://regex101.com/debugger) to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.\r\n\r\nFrom there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.\r\n\r\n| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |\r\n| -------|-------------:| -----:|\r\n| ACCCX | 3 | 38\r\n| ACCCCX | 4 | 71\r\n| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136\r\n| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553\r\n\r\n\r\nBy the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.\n\n# Remediation\n\nUpgrade `marked` to version 0.3.9 or higher.\n\n\n# References\n\n- [GitHub Issue](https://github.com/chjj/marked/issues/937)\n\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/chjj/marked/pull/958)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "npm:marked:20180225",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "High severity - Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) vulnerability in marked"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "marked@0.3.5"
},
"help": {
"text": "",
"markdown": "* Package Manager: npm\n* Vulnerable module: marked\n* Introduced through: goof@1.0.1 and marked@0.3.5\n### Detailed paths\n* _Introduced through_: goof@1.0.1 › marked@0.3.5\n# Overview\n[marked](https://marked.js.org/) is a low-level compiler for parsing markdown without caching or blocking for long periods of time.\n\nAffected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). This can cause an impact of about 10 seconds matching time for data 150 characters long.\r\n\r\n# Disclosure Timeline\r\n* Feb 21th, 2018 - Initial Disclosure to package owner\r\n* Feb 21th, 2018 - Initial Response from package owner\r\n* Feb 26th, 2018 - Fix issued\r\n* Feb 27th, 2018 - Vulnerability published\n\n# Details\n\nDenial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.\n\nThe Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.\n\nLet’s take the following regular expression as an example:\n```js\nregex = /A(B|C+)+D/\n```\n\nThis regular expression accomplishes the following:\n- `A` The string must start with the letter 'A'\n- `(B|C+)+` The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the `+` matches one or more times). The `+` at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.\n- `D` Finally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'\n\nThe expression would match inputs such as `ABBD`, `ABCCCCD`, `ABCBCCCD` and `ACCCCCD`\n\nIt most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:\n\n```bash\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD\")'\n0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total\n\n$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test(\"ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX\")'\n1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total\n```\n\nThe entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.\n\nMost Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as _catastrophic backtracking_.\n\nLet's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: \"ACCCX\". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:\n1. CCC\n2. CC+C\n3. C+CC\n4. C+C+C.\n\nThe engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use [RegEx 101 debugger](https://regex101.com/debugger) to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.\n\nFrom there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.\n\n| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |\n| -------|-------------:| -----:|\n| ACCCX | 3 | 38\n| ACCCCX | 4 | 71\n| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136\n| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553\n\n\nBy the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.\n\n# Remediation\nUpgrade `marked` to version 0.3.18 or higher.\n# References\n- [GitHub Commit](https://github.com/markedjs/marked/pull/1083/commits/b15e42b67cec9ded8505e9d68bb8741ad7a9590d)\n- [GitHub PR](https://github.com/markedjs/marked/pull/1083)\n"
},
"properties": {
"tags": [
"security",
"CWE-185",
"CWE-400",
"npm"
]
}
},
{
"id": "SNYK-JS-MINIMIST-559764",
"shortDescription": {
"text": "Medium severity - Prototype Pollution vulnerability in minimist"
},
"fullDescription": {
"text": "(CVE-2020-7598) minimist@1.2.0"
},
"help": {
"text": "",