CVE-2024-31205

Saleor is an e-commerce platform. Starting in version 3.10.0 and prior to versions 3.14.64, 3.15.39, 3.16.39, 3.17.35, 3.18.31, and 3.19.19, an attacker may bypass cross-set request forgery (CSRF) validation when calling refresh token mutation with empty string. When a user provides an empty string in refreshToken mutation, while the token persists in JWT_REFRESH_TOKEN_COOKIE_NAME cookie, application omits validation against CSRF token and returns valid access token. Versions 3.14.64, 3.15.39, 3.16.39, 3.17.35, 3.18.31, and 3.19.19 contain a patch for the issue. As a workaround, one may replace saleor.graphql.account.mutations.authentication.refresh_token.py.get_refresh_token. This will fix the issue, but be aware, that it returns JWT_MISSING_TOKEN instead of JWT_INVALID_TOKEN.

Weakness

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
• For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330]
• Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
• Use the “double-submitted cookie” method as described by Felten and Zeller:
• When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user’s machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same.
• Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult.
• This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/111.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/462.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/467.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/62.html

References

• https://github.com/saleor/saleor/commit/36699c6f5c99590d24f46e3d5c5b1a3c2fd072e7
• https://github.com/saleor/saleor/security/advisories/GHSA-ff69-fwjf-3c9w
• https://github.com/saleor/saleor/commit/36699c6f5c99590d24f46e3d5c5b1a3c2fd072e7
• https://github.com/saleor/saleor/security/advisories/GHSA-ff69-fwjf-3c9w