CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-8334

Improper Output Neutralization for Logs

Published: Aug 30, 2024 | Modified: Sep 19, 2024
CVSS 3.x
8.1
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

A vulnerability was found in master-nan Sweet-CMS up to 5f441e022b8876f07cde709c77b5be6d2f262e3f. It has been rated as problematic. This issue affects the function LogHandler of the file middleware/log.go. The manipulation leads to improper output neutralization for logs. The attack may be initiated remotely. This product takes the approach of rolling releases to provide continious delivery. Therefore, version details for affected and updated releases are not available. The identifier of the patch is 2024c370e6c78b07b358c9d4257fa5d1be732c38. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Sweet-cms Master-nan * 2024-08-27 (including)

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.

References