GeoServer is an open source server that allows users to share and edit geospatial data. Prior to versions 2.23.6, 2.24.4, and 2.25.2, multiple OGC request parameters allow Remote Code Execution (RCE) by unauthenticated users through specially crafted input against a default GeoServer installation due to unsafely evaluating property names as XPath expressions.
The GeoTools library API that GeoServer calls evaluates property/attribute names for feature types in a way that unsafely passes them to the commons-jxpath library which can execute arbitrary code when evaluating XPath expressions. This XPath evaluation is intended to be used only by complex feature types (i.e., Application Schema data stores) but is incorrectly being applied to simple feature types as well which makes this vulnerability apply to ALL GeoServer instances. No public PoC is provided but this vulnerability has been confirmed to be exploitable through WFS GetFeature, WFS GetPropertyValue, WMS GetMap, WMS GetFeatureInfo, WMS GetLegendGraphic and WPS Execute requests. This vulnerability can lead to executing arbitrary code.
Versions 2.23.6, 2.24.4, and 2.25.2 contain a patch for the issue. A workaround exists by removing the gt-complex-x.y.jar
file from the GeoServer where x.y
is the GeoTools version (e.g., gt-complex-31.1.jar
if running GeoServer 2.25.1). This will remove the vulnerable code from GeoServer but may break some GeoServer functionality or prevent GeoServer from deploying if the gt-complex module is needed.
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
---|---|---|---|
Geoserver | Geoserver | * | 2.23.6 (excluding) |
Geoserver | Geoserver | 2.24.0 (including) | 2.24.4 (excluding) |
Geoserver | Geoserver | 2.25.0 (including) | 2.25.2 (excluding) |
Geotools | Geotools | * | 29.6 (excluding) |
Geotools | Geotools | 30.0 (including) | 30.4 (excluding) |
Geotools | Geotools | 31.0 (including) | 31.2 (excluding) |
When a product allows a user’s input to contain code syntax, it might be possible for an attacker to craft the code in such a way that it will alter the intended control flow of the product. Such an alteration could lead to arbitrary code execution. Injection problems encompass a wide variety of issues – all mitigated in very different ways. For this reason, the most effective way to discuss these weaknesses is to note the distinct features which classify them as injection weaknesses. The most important issue to note is that all injection problems share one thing in common – i.e., they allow for the injection of control plane data into the user-controlled data plane. This means that the execution of the process may be altered by sending code in through legitimate data channels, using no other mechanism. While buffer overflows, and many other flaws, involve the use of some further issue to gain execution, injection problems need only for the data to be parsed. The most classic instantiations of this category of weakness are SQL injection and format string vulnerabilities.