CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2022-39207

Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource

Published: Sep 13, 2022 | Modified: Jul 13, 2023
CVSS 3.x
5.4
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

Onedev is an open source, self-hosted Git Server with CI/CD and Kanban. During CI/CD builds, it is possible to save build artifacts for later retrieval. They can be accessed through OneDevs web UI after the successful run of a build. These artifact files are served by the webserver in the same context as the UI without any further restrictions. This leads to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) when a user creates a build artifact that contains HTML. When accessing the artifact, the content is rendered by the browser, including any JavaScript that it contains. Since all cookies (except for the rememberMe one) do not set the HttpOnly flag, an attacker could steal the session of a victim and use it to impersonate them. To exploit this issue, attackers need to be able to modify the content of artifacts, which usually means they need to be able to modify a projects build spec. The exploitation requires the victim to click on an attackers link. It can be used to elevate privileges by targeting admins of a OneDev instance. In the worst case, this can lead to arbitrary code execution on the server, because admins can create Server Shell Executors and use them to run any command on the server. This issue has been patched in version 7.3.0. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this issue.

Weakness

The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Onedev Onedev_project * 7.3.0 (excluding)

Potential Mitigations

  • Run the code in a “jail” or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
  • OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
  • This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
  • Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

References