CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2021-41275

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Published: Nov 17, 2021 | Modified: Nov 07, 2023
CVSS 3.x
8.8
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
6.8 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

spree_auth_devise is an open source library which provides authentication and authorization services for use with the Spree storefront framework by using an underlying Devise authentication framework. In affected versions spree_auth_devise is subject to a CSRF vulnerability that allows user account takeover. All applications using any version of the frontend component of spree_auth_devise are affected if protect_from_forgery method is both: Executed whether as: A before_action callback (the default). A prepend_before_action (option prepend: true given) before the :load_object hook in Spree::UserController (most likely order to find). Configured to use :null_session or :reset_session strategies (:null_session is the default in case the no strategy is given, but rails –new generated skeleton use :exception). Users are advised to update their spree_auth_devise gem. For users unable to update it may be possible to change your strategy to :exception. Please see the linked GHSA for more workaround details. ### Impact CSRF vulnerability that allows user account takeover. All applications using any version of the frontend component of spree_auth_devise are affected if protect_from_forgery method is both: * Executed whether as: * A before_action callback (the default) * A prepend_before_action (option prepend: true given) before the :load_object hook in Spree::UserController (most likely order to find). * Configured to use :null_session or :reset_session strategies (:null_session is the default in case the no strategy is given, but rails –new generated skeleton use :exception). That means that applications that havent been configured differently from what its generated with Rails arent affected. Thanks @waiting-for-dev for reporting and providing a patch �� ### Patches Spree 4.3 users should update to spree_auth_devise 4.4.1 Spree 4.2 users should update to spree_auth_devise 4.2.1 ### Workarounds If possible, change your strategy to :exception: ruby class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base protect_from_forgery with: :exception end Add the following toconfig/application.rb to at least run the :exception strategy on the affected controller: ruby config.after_initialize do Spree::UsersController.protect_from_forgery with: :exception end ### References https://github.com/solidusio/solidus_auth_devise/security/advisories/GHSA-xm34-v85h-9pg2

Weakness

The web application does not, or can not, sufficiently verify whether a well-formed, valid, consistent request was intentionally provided by the user who submitted the request.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Spree_auth_devise Spreecommerce * 4.0.1 (including)
Spree_auth_devise Spreecommerce 4.3.0 (including) 4.4.1 (excluding)
Spree_auth_devise Spreecommerce 4.1.0 (including) 4.1.0 (including)
Spree_auth_devise Spreecommerce 4.1.0-rc1 (including) 4.1.0-rc1 (including)
Spree_auth_devise Spreecommerce 4.2.0 (including) 4.2.0 (including)

Potential Mitigations

  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
  • For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330]
  • Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
  • Use the “double-submitted cookie” method as described by Felten and Zeller:
  • When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user’s machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same.
  • Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult.
  • This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]

References