Templates do not properly consider backticks (`) as Javascript string delimiters, and do not escape them as expected. Backticks are used, since ES6, for JS template literals. If a template contains a Go template action within a Javascript template literal, the contents of the action can be used to terminate the literal, injecting arbitrary Javascript code into the Go template. As ES6 template literals are rather complex, and themselves can do string interpolation, the decision was made to simply disallow Go template actions from being used inside of them (e.g., var a = {{.}}), since there is no obviously safe way to allow this behavior. This takes the same approach as github.com/google/safehtml. With fix, Template. Parse returns an Error when it encounters templates like this, with an ErrorCode of value 12. This ErrorCode is currently unexported but will be exported in the release of Go 1.21. Users who rely on the previous behavior can re-enable it using the GODEBUG flag jstmpllitinterp=1, with the caveat that backticks will now be escaped. This should be used with caution.
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 |
---|---|---|---|
Zabbix-agent2 | Zabbix | 5.0.0 (including) | 5.0.35 (excluding) |
Zabbix-agent2 | Zabbix | 6.0.0 (including) | 6.0.18 (excluding) |
Zabbix-agent2 | Zabbix | 6.4.0 (including) | 6.4.3 (excluding) |
Zabbix | Ubuntu | bionic | * |
Zabbix | Ubuntu | esm-apps/jammy | * |
Zabbix | Ubuntu | jammy | * |
Zabbix | Ubuntu | lunar | * |
Zabbix | Ubuntu | mantic | * |
Zabbix | Ubuntu | trusty | * |
Zabbix | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
Zabbix | 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.