Skip to content

@saltcorn/plugins-loader unsanitized plugin name leads to a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability when creating plugins using git source

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Oct 3, 2024 in saltcorn/saltcorn • Updated Oct 4, 2024

Package

npm @saltcorn/plugins-loader (npm)

Affected versions

<= 1.0.0-beta.13

Patched versions

1.0.0-beta.14

Description

Summary

When creating a new plugin using the git source, the user-controlled value req.body.name is used to build the plugin directory where the location will be cloned. The API used to execute the git clone command with the user-controlled data is child_process.execSync. Since the user-controlled data is not validated, a user with admin permission can add escaping characters and execute arbitrary commands, leading to a command injection vulnerability.

Details

Relevant code from source (req.body) to sink (child_process.execSync).

router.post(
  "/",
  isAdmin,
  error_catcher(async (req, res) => {
    const plugin = new Plugin(req.body); // [1] 
      [...]
      try {
        await load_plugins.loadAndSaveNewPlugin( // [3] 
          plugin,
          schema === db.connectObj.default_schema || plugin.source === "github"
        );
        [...]
    }
  })
);
class Plugin {
  [...]
  constructor(o: PluginCfg | PluginPack | Plugin) {
    [...]
    this.name = o.name; // [2] 
    [...]
}
const loadAndSaveNewPlugin = async (plugin, force, noSignalOrDB) => {
  [...]
  const loader = new PluginInstaller(plugin); // [4] 
  const res = await loader.install(force); // [7] 
  [...]
};
class PluginInstaller {
  constructor(plugin, opts = {}) {
    [...]
    const tokens =
      plugin.source === "npm"
        ? plugin.location.split("/")
        : plugin.name.split("/"); // [5] 
    [...]
    this.tempDir = join(this.tempRootFolder, "temp_install", ...tokens); // [6] 
    [...]
  }

  
  async install(force) {
    [...]
    if (await this.prepPluginsFolder(force, pckJSON)) { // [8] 
    [...]
  }

  async prepPluginsFolder(force, pckJSON) {
    [...]
    switch (this.plugin.source) {
      [...]
      case "git":
        if (force || !(await pathExists(this.pluginDir))) { 
          await gitPullOrClone(this.plugin, this.tempDir); // [9] 
	  [...]
  }
const gitPullOrClone = async (plugin, pluginDir) => {
  [...]
  if (fs.existsSync(pluginDir)) {
    execSync(`git ${setKey} -C ${pluginDir} pull`);
  } else {
    execSync(`git ${setKey} clone ${plugin.location} ${pluginDir}`); // [10] 
  }
  [...]
};

PoC

  • check that the file will be created by the command echo "hello">/tmp/HACKED does not exists:
cat /tmp/HACKED
cat: /tmp/HACKED: No such file or directory
  • login with an admin account
  • visit http://localhost:3000/plugins/new
  • enter the following fields:
    • Name: ;echo "hello">/tmp/HACKED
    • Source: git
    • other fields blank
  • click Create
  • you will get an error saying ENOENT: no such file or directory, .... but the command touch /tmp/HACKED will be executed
  • to verify:
cat /tmp/HACKED
hello

Impact

Remote code execution

Recommended Mitigation

Sanitize the pluginDir value before passing to execSync. Alternatively, use child_process. execFileSync API (docs: https://nodejs.org/api/child_process.html#child_processexecfilesyncfile-args-options)

References

@glutamate glutamate published to saltcorn/saltcorn Oct 3, 2024
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Oct 3, 2024
Reviewed Oct 3, 2024
Last updated Oct 4, 2024

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required High
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Weaknesses

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-fm76-w8jw-xf8m

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.