Grav before 2.0.25 ships web server configuration samples whose access-control deny rules are matched case-sensitively. In webserver-configs/web.config (IIS), every deny rule (user_sensitive_folders, user_accounts, user_data, user_error_redirect, user_pages, system, vendor, ignore_folders) sets ignoreCase=false on its URL Rewrite element, overriding the IIS default of ignoreCase=true; because these are rewrite matches rather than elements, there is no case-insensitive fallback. On IIS running over case-insensitive NTFS, an unauthenticated remote attacker can vary the case of a folder name or file extension (for example GET /user/CONFIG/system.YAML) so that no deny rule matches and the IIS static file handler resolves and returns the underlying file, disclosing sensitive data such as configuration secrets or account password hashes. Whether a bypassed file is actually returned depends on MIME registration: .json is served by default, while .yaml/.yml return HTTP 404.3 on a stock IIS unless a YAML MIME mapping has been added. The same class of gap exists in the bundled webserver-configs/lighttpd.conf, whose user/(config|env), directory, script-extension, root-file and dotfile rules lack the (?i) modifier, though it is lower risk because lighttpd typically runs on case-sensitive filesystems. Deployments served by Apache (.htaccess), nginx, Caddy, or the PHP built-in server are not affected. The issue is fixed in 2.0.25; because the .htaccess installer heal does not touch web.config or lighttpd.conf, operators must re-copy the corrected sample files after upgrading.
Weakness
The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.
Extended Description
Improperly handled case sensitive data can lead to several possible consequences, including:
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.