CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2023-6484

Improper Output Neutralization for Logs

Published: Apr 25, 2024 | Modified: Apr 25, 2024
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
5.3 LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Ubuntu

A log injection flaw was found in Keycloak. A text string may be injected through the authentication form when using the WebAuthn authentication mode. This issue may have a minor impact to the logs integrity.

Weakness

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes output that is written to logs.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Red Hat build of Keycloak 22 RedHat rhbk/keycloak-operator-bundle:22.0.10-1 *
Red Hat build of Keycloak 22 RedHat rhbk/keycloak-rhel9:22-13 *
Red Hat build of Keycloak 22 RedHat rhbk/keycloak-rhel9-operator:22-16 *
Red Hat build of Keycloak 22.0.10 RedHat *
Red Hat Single Sign-On 7 RedHat keycloak *
Red Hat Single Sign-On 7.6 for RHEL 7 RedHat rh-sso7-keycloak-0:18.0.12-1.redhat_00001.1.el7sso *
Red Hat Single Sign-On 7.6 for RHEL 7 RedHat rh-sso7-keycloak-0:18.0.13-1.redhat_00001.1.el7sso *
Red Hat Single Sign-On 7.6 for RHEL 8 RedHat rh-sso7-keycloak-0:18.0.12-1.redhat_00001.1.el8sso *
Red Hat Single Sign-On 7.6 for RHEL 8 RedHat rh-sso7-keycloak-0:18.0.13-1.redhat_00001.1.el8sso *
Red Hat Single Sign-On 7.6 for RHEL 9 RedHat rh-sso7-keycloak-0:18.0.12-1.redhat_00001.1.el9sso *
Red Hat Single Sign-On 7.6 for RHEL 9 RedHat rh-sso7-keycloak-0:18.0.13-1.redhat_00001.1.el9sso *
RHEL-8 based Middleware Containers RedHat rh-sso-7/sso76-openshift-rhel8:7.6-41 *
RHEL-8 based Middleware Containers RedHat rh-sso-7/sso76-openshift-rhel8:7.6-46 *
RHEL-8 based Middleware Containers RedHat rh-sso-7/sso7-rhel8-init-container:7.6-16 *
RHEL-8 based Middleware Containers RedHat rh-sso-7/sso7-rhel8-operator:7.6-18 *
RHEL-8 based Middleware Containers RedHat rh-sso-7/sso7-rhel8-operator-bundle:7.6.8-2 *
RHSSO 7.6.8 RedHat keycloak-rhel9-operator-bundle-container *

Extended Description

This can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into logs. Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

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.

References