MISP contains a mass assignment vulnerability in the event delegation feature. When a user with delegation permission submits a delegation request, the application authorized the user against the event identified in the URL but then persisted the entire submitted record, including caller-supplied fields such as the primary key and event_id.
An authenticated attacker could inject a primary key or event_id into the delegation payload to retarget an existing delegation record to any event on the instance. Because a delegation row grants the requesting organisation read access to the event it references, this effectively granted read access to arbitrary events belonging to other organisations. If the target organisation subsequently accepted the delegation, ownership of the event was transferred and the original record was deleted.
Preconditions:
An authenticated user with the delegation permission (perm_delegate)
The MISP.delegation server setting must be enabled
Impact:
Confidentiality: read access to any event on the instance
Integrity: overwriting existing delegation records and transferring event ownership
Affected versions: MISP < 2.5.48
Weakness
The system’s authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user’s data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Extended Description
Retrieval of a user record occurs in the system based on some key value that is under user control. The key would typically identify a user-related record stored in the system and would be used to lookup that record for presentation to the user. It is likely that an attacker would have to be an authenticated user in the system. However, the authorization process would not properly check the data access operation to ensure that the authenticated user performing the operation has sufficient entitlements to perform the requested data access, hence bypassing any other authorization checks present in the system. For example, attackers can look at places where user specific data is retrieved (e.g. search screens) and determine whether the key for the item being looked up is controllable externally. The key may be a hidden field in the HTML form field, might be passed as a URL parameter or as an unencrypted cookie variable, then in each of these cases it will be possible to tamper with the key value. One manifestation of this weakness is when a system uses sequential or otherwise easily-guessable session IDs that would allow one user to easily switch to another user’s session and read/modify their data.