CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2021-43809

Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')

Published: Dec 08, 2021 | Modified: Nov 16, 2023
CVSS 3.x
7.3
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
9.3 HIGH
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

Bundler is a package for managing application dependencies in Ruby. In bundler versions before 2.2.33, when working with untrusted and apparently harmless Gemfiles, it is not expected that they lead to execution of external code, unless thats explicit in the ruby code inside the Gemfile itself. However, if the Gemfile includes gem entries that use the git option with invalid, but seemingly harmless, values with a leading dash, this can be false. To handle dependencies that come from a Git repository instead of a registry, Bundler uses various commands, such as git clone. These commands are being constructed using user input (e.g. the repository URL). When building the commands, Bundler versions before 2.2.33 correctly avoid Command Injection vulnerabilities by passing an array of arguments instead of a command string. However, there is the possibility that a user input starts with a dash (-) and is therefore treated as an optional argument instead of a positional one. This can lead to Code Execution because some of the commands have options that can be leveraged to run arbitrary executables. Since this value comes from the Gemfile file, it can contain any character, including a leading dash.

To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker has to craft a directory containing a Gemfile file that declares a dependency that is located in a Git repository. This dependency has to have a Git URL in the form of -u./payload. This URL will be used to construct a Git clone command but will be interpreted as the upload-pack argument. Then this directory needs to be shared with the victim, who then needs to run a command that evaluates the Gemfile, such as bundle lock, inside.

This vulnerability can lead to Arbitrary Code Execution, which could potentially lead to the takeover of the system. However, the exploitability is very low, because it requires a lot of user interaction. Bundler 2.2.33 has patched this problem by inserting -- as an argument before any positional arguments to those Git commands that were affected by this issue. Regardless of whether users can upgrade or not, they should review any untrustred Gemfiles before running any bundler commands that may read them, since they can contain arbitrary ruby code.

Weakness

The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Bundler Bundler * 2.2.33 (excluding)

Extended Description

When creating commands using interpolation into a string, developers may assume that only the arguments/options that they specify will be processed. This assumption may be even stronger when the programmer has encoded the command in a way that prevents separate commands from being provided maliciously, e.g. in the case of shell metacharacters. When constructing the command, the developer may use whitespace or other delimiters that are required to separate arguments when the command. However, if an attacker can provide an untrusted input that contains argument-separating delimiters, then the resulting command will have more arguments than intended by the developer. The attacker may then be able to change the behavior of the command. Depending on the functionality supported by the extraneous arguments, this may have security-relevant consequences.

Potential Mitigations

  • Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
  • When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
  • Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application’s current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control.
  • Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.

References