CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-29033

Improper Authorization

Published: Mar 20, 2024 | Modified: Mar 20, 2024
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

OAuthenticator provides plugins for JupyterHub to use common OAuth providers, as well as base classes for writing ones own Authenticators with any OAuth 2.0 provider. GoogleOAuthenticator.hosted_domain is used to restrict what Google accounts can be authorized access to a JupyterHub. The restriction is intented to be to Google accounts part of one or more Google organization verified to control specified domain(s). Prior to version 16.3.0, the actual restriction has been to Google accounts with emails ending with the domain. Such accounts could have been created by anyone which at one time was able to read an email associated with the domain. This was described by Dylan Ayrey (@dxa4481) in this [blog post] from 15th December 2023). OAuthenticator 16.3.0 contains a patch for this issue. As a workaround, restrict who can login another way, such as allowed_users or allowed_google_groups.

Weakness

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

Extended Description

Assuming a user with a given identity, authorization is the process of determining whether that user can access a given resource, based on the user’s privileges and any permissions or other access-control specifications that apply to the resource. When access control checks are not applied consistently - or not at all - users are able to access data or perform actions that they should not be allowed to perform. This can lead to a wide range of problems, including information exposures, denial of service, and arbitrary code execution.

Potential Mitigations

  • Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
  • Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
  • For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page.
  • One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.

References