LedgerSMB does not set the Secure attribute on the session authorization cookie when the client uses HTTPS and the LedgerSMB server is behind a reverse proxy. By tricking a user to use an unencrypted connection (HTTP), an attacker may be able to obtain the authentication data by capturing network traffic. LedgerSMB 1.8 and newer switched from Basic authentication to using cookie authentication with encrypted cookies. Although an attacker cant access the information inside the cookie, nor the password of the user, possession of the cookie is enough to access the application as the user from which the cookie has been obtained. In order for the attacker to obtain the cookie, first of all the server must be configured to respond to unencrypted requests, the attacker must be suitably positioned to eavesdrop on the network traffic between the client and the server and the user must be tricked into using unencrypted HTTP traffic. Proper audit control and separation of duties limit Integrity impact of the attack vector. Users of LedgerSMB 1.8 are urged to upgrade to known-fixed versions. Users of LedgerSMB 1.7 or 1.9 are unaffected by this vulnerability and dont need to take action. As a workaround, users may configure their Apache or Nginx reverse proxy to add the Secure attribute at the network boundary instead of relying on LedgerSMB. For Apache, please refer to the Header always edit configuration command in the mod_headers module. For Nginx, please refer to the proxy_cookie_flags configuration command.
The product does not encrypt sensitive or critical information before storage or transmission.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ledgersmb | Ledgersmb | 1.8.0 (including) | 1.8.22 (excluding) |
Ensure that encryption is properly integrated into the system design, including but not necessarily limited to:
Identify the separate needs and contexts for encryption:
Using threat modeling or other techniques, assume that data can be compromised through a separate vulnerability or weakness, and determine where encryption will be most effective. Ensure that data that should be private is not being inadvertently exposed using weaknesses such as insecure permissions (CWE-732). [REF-7]
When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations. As with all cryptographic mechanisms, the source code should be available for analysis.
For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-2 certification.
Do not develop custom or private cryptographic algorithms. They will likely be exposed to attacks that are well-understood by cryptographers. Reverse engineering techniques are mature. If the algorithm can be compromised if attackers find out how it works, then it is especially weak.
Periodically ensure that the cryptography has not become obsolete. Some older algorithms, once thought to require a billion years of computing time, can now be broken in days or hours. This includes MD4, MD5, SHA1, DES, and other algorithms that were once regarded as strong. [REF-267]
Compartmentalize the system to have “safe” areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.