CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-29041

URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')

Published: Mar 25, 2024 | Modified: Nov 21, 2024
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
6.1 IMPORTANT
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

Express.js minimalist web framework for node. Versions of Express.js prior to 4.19.0 and all pre-release alpha and beta versions of 5.0 are affected by an open redirect vulnerability using malformed URLs. When a user of Express performs a redirect using a user-provided URL Express performs an encode using encodeurl on the contents before passing it to the location header. This can cause malformed URLs to be evaluated in unexpected ways by common redirect allow list implementations in Express applications, leading to an Open Redirect via bypass of a properly implemented allow list. The main method impacted is res.location() but this is also called from within res.redirect(). The vulnerability is fixed in 4.19.2 and 5.0.0-beta.3.

Weakness

A web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a Redirect. This simplifies phishing attacks.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
NETWORK-OBSERVABILITY-1.6.0-RHEL-9 RedHat network-observability/network-observability-cli-rhel9:v1.6.0-66 *
NETWORK-OBSERVABILITY-1.6.0-RHEL-9 RedHat network-observability/network-observability-console-plugin-rhel9:v1.6.0-66 *
NETWORK-OBSERVABILITY-1.6.0-RHEL-9 RedHat network-observability/network-observability-ebpf-agent-rhel9:v1.6.0-66 *
NETWORK-OBSERVABILITY-1.6.0-RHEL-9 RedHat network-observability/network-observability-flowlogs-pipeline-rhel9:v1.6.0-66 *
NETWORK-OBSERVABILITY-1.6.0-RHEL-9 RedHat network-observability/network-observability-operator-bundle:1.6.0-78 *
NETWORK-OBSERVABILITY-1.6.0-RHEL-9 RedHat network-observability/network-observability-rhel9-operator:v1.6.0-66 *
Red Hat build of Apicurio Registry 2.6.1 GA RedHat express *
Red Hat Migration Toolkit for Containers 1.8 RedHat rhmtc/openshift-migration-ui-rhel8:v1.8.4-10 *
Red Hat OpenShift Service Mesh 2.6 for RHEL 8 RedHat openshift-service-mesh/grafana-rhel8:2.6.1-6 *
Red Hat OpenShift Service Mesh 2.6 for RHEL 8 RedHat openshift-service-mesh/istio-cni-rhel8:2.6.1-7 *
Red Hat OpenShift Service Mesh 2.6 for RHEL 8 RedHat openshift-service-mesh/istio-must-gather-rhel8:2.6.1-4 *
Red Hat OpenShift Service Mesh 2.6 for RHEL 8 RedHat openshift-service-mesh/istio-rhel8-operator:2.6.1-9 *
Red Hat OpenShift Service Mesh 2.6 for RHEL 8 RedHat openshift-service-mesh/kiali-ossmc-rhel8:1.89.0-2 *
Red Hat OpenShift Service Mesh 2.6 for RHEL 8 RedHat openshift-service-mesh/kiali-rhel8:1.89.1-3 *
Red Hat OpenShift Service Mesh 2.6 for RHEL 8 RedHat openshift-service-mesh/kiali-rhel8-operator:1.89.1-1 *
Red Hat OpenShift Service Mesh 2.6 for RHEL 8 RedHat openshift-service-mesh/pilot-rhel8:2.6.1-7 *
Red Hat OpenShift Service Mesh 2.6 for RHEL 8 RedHat openshift-service-mesh/ratelimit-rhel8:2.6.1-6 *
Red Hat OpenShift Service Mesh 2.6 for RHEL 9 RedHat openshift-service-mesh/proxyv2-rhel9:2.6.1-4 *
RHODF-4.14-RHEL-9 RedHat odf4/mcg-core-rhel9:v4.14.11-1 *
Node-express Ubuntu mantic *

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.
  • Use a list of approved URLs or domains to be used for redirection.
  • When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
  • For example, ID 1 could map to “/login.asp” and ID 2 could map to “http://www.example.com/". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-45] provide this capability.
  • Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • Many open redirect problems occur because the programmer assumed that certain inputs could not be modified, such as cookies and hidden form fields.

References