Poetry is a dependency manager for Python. When handling dependencies that come from a Git repository instead of a registry, Poetry uses various commands, such as git clone
. These commands are constructed using user input (e.g. the repository URL). When building the commands, Poetry correctly avoids 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. If a developer is exploited, the attacker could steal credentials or persist their access. If the exploit happens on a server, the attackers could use their access to attack other internal systems. Since this vulnerability requires a fair amount of user interaction, it is not as dangerous as a remotely exploitable one. However, it still puts developers at risk when dealing with untrusted files in a way they think is safe, because the exploit still works when the victim tries to make sure nothing can happen, e.g. by vetting any Git or Poetry config files that might be present in the directory. Versions 1.1.9 and 1.2.0b1 contain patches for this issue.
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
---|---|---|---|
Poetry | Python-poetry | * | 1.1.9 (excluding) |
Poetry | Python-poetry | 1.2.0-alpha1 (including) | 1.2.0-alpha1 (including) |
Poetry | Python-poetry | 1.2.0-alpha2 (including) | 1.2.0-alpha2 (including) |
Poetry | Ubuntu | kinetic | * |
Poetry | Ubuntu | lunar | * |
Poetry | Ubuntu | mantic | * |
Poetry | Ubuntu | trusty | * |
Poetry | Ubuntu | xenial | * |
When a product allows a user’s input to contain code syntax, it might be possible for an attacker to craft the code in such a way that it will alter the intended control flow of the product. Such an alteration could lead to arbitrary code execution. Injection problems encompass a wide variety of issues – all mitigated in very different ways. For this reason, the most effective way to discuss these weaknesses is to note the distinct features which classify them as injection weaknesses. The most important issue to note is that all injection problems share one thing in common – i.e., they allow for the injection of control plane data into the user-controlled data plane. This means that the execution of the process may be altered by sending code in through legitimate data channels, using no other mechanism. While buffer overflows, and many other flaws, involve the use of some further issue to gain execution, injection problems need only for the data to be parsed. The most classic instantiations of this category of weakness are SQL injection and format string vulnerabilities.