Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Security Vulnerability - Stored Cross Site Scripting #51

Closed
adam-greer opened this issue Dec 19, 2023 · 4 comments
Closed

Security Vulnerability - Stored Cross Site Scripting #51

adam-greer opened this issue Dec 19, 2023 · 4 comments

Comments

@adam-greer
Copy link

Summary

WireMock with GUI versions 3.2.0.0 through 3.0.4.0 are vulnerable to stored cross-site scripting (SXSS) through the recording feature. An attacker can host a malicious payload and perform a test mapping pointing to the attacker's file, and the result will render on the Matched page in the Body area, resulting in the execution of the payload. This occurs because the response body is not validated or sanitized.

Tested Versions

3.2.0.0
3.1.0.0
3.0.4.0

POC

poc

Recommendations

Follow the offical Wiremock documentation to prevent proxying to unintended locations.
Update to the latest release of Wiremock with GUI.

References

CVE-2023-50069
https://wiremock.org/docs/configuration/#preventing-proxying-to-and-recording-from-specific-target-addresses

CVSS

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality Impact: Low
Integrity Impact: Low
Availability Impact: None

@holomekc
Copy link
Owner

Hi,
Thx for mentioning that. Do you see a need to backport a fix for that, because as you mentioned, this is already fixed in the latest versions.

@adam-greer
Copy link
Author

I'm not overly filmier with the changes between the versions. If there is a need for a user to stay on versions 3.2.0.0, 3.1.0.0 or 3.0.4.0 then I think going back and resolving the issue would be worth it. If not, I would recommend for users to upgrade to the latest.

@holomekc
Copy link
Owner

I will test the effort with 3.2.0.0. I think it it's not much, but yeah I often thought that in the past. We will see. I will post an update here when I have more insights.

@holomekc
Copy link
Owner

Backported a fix for:

  • 3.0.4.0
  • 3.1.0.0
  • 3.2.0.0

I added a small section in the Readme, which will mention this to encourage users to update.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants