CVE-2024-29022

Xibo is an Open Source Digital Signage platform with a web content management system and Windows display player software. In affected versions some request headers are not correctly sanitised when stored in the session and display tables. These headers can be used to inject a malicious script into the session page to exfiltrate session IDs and User Agents. These session IDs / User Agents can subsequently be used to hijack active sessions. A malicious script can be injected into the display grid to exfiltrate information related to displays. Users should upgrade to version 3.3.10 or 4.0.9 which fix this issue. Customers who host their CMS with the Xibo Signage service have already received an upgrade or patch to resolve this issue regardless of the CMS version that they are running. Upgrading to a fixed version is necessary to remediate. Patches are available for earlier versions of Xibo CMS that are out of security support: 2.3 patch ebeccd000b51f00b9a25f56a2f252d6812ebf850.diff. 1.8 patch a81044e6ccdd92cc967e34c125bd8162432e51bc.diff. There are no known workarounds for this issue.

Weakness

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

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.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/268.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/81.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/93.html

References

• https://github.com/dasgarner/xibo-cms/commit/a81044e6ccdd92cc967e34c125bd8162432e51bc.diff
• https://github.com/xibosignage/xibo-cms/commit/ebeccd000b51f00b9a25f56a2f252d6812ebf850.diff
• https://github.com/xibosignage/xibo-cms/security/advisories/GHSA-xchw-pf2w-rpgq
• https://xibosignage.com/blog/security-advisory-2024-04