CVE-2023-30623

embano1/wip is a GitHub Action written in Bash. Prior to version 2, the embano1/wip action uses the github.event.pull_request.title parameter in an insecure way. The title parameter is used in a run statement - resulting in a command injection vulnerability due to string interpolation. This vulnerability can be triggered by any user on GitHub. They just need to create a pull request with a commit message containing an exploit. (Note that first-time PR requests will not be run - but the attacker can submit a valid PR before submitting an invalid PR). The commit can be genuine, but the commit message can be malicious. This can be used to execute code on the GitHub runners and can be used to exfiltrate any secrets used in the CI pipeline, including repository tokens. Version 2 has a fix for this issue.

Weakness

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.

Affected Software

Extended Description

Command injection vulnerabilities typically occur when:

Many protocols and products have their own custom command language. While OS or shell command strings are frequently discovered and targeted, developers may not realize that these other command languages might also be vulnerable to attacks. Command injection is a common problem with wrapper programs.

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.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/136.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/15.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/183.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/248.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/40.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/43.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/75.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/76.html

References

• https://github.com/embano1/wip/commit/c25450f77ed02c20d00b76ee3b33ff43838739a2
• https://github.com/embano1/wip/security/advisories/GHSA-rg3q-prf8-qxmp
• https://securitylab.github.com/research/github-actions-untrusted-input/