Impact: The morgan logging middlewares :remote-user token extracts the Basic auth username from the Authorization request header and writes it to the log stream without neutralizing control characters. An unauthenticated attacker can send a crafted Authorization Basic header containing CR or LF bytes to inject forged log lines, breaking the one-request-per-line structure of access logs and enabling log forgery against downstream log consumers. The built-in combined, common, default, and short formats are affected, as well as any custom format that references :remote-user. Affected versions: morgan 1.2.0 through 1.10.1. Patches: upgrade to morgan 1.11.0, which neutralizes control characters in the :remote-user token output. Workarounds: use a custom format string that does not include :remote-user.
Weakness
The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file.
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morgan | Morgan_project | 1.2.0 (including) | 1.11.0 (excluding) |
| Red Hat Hardened Images | RedHat | nodejs24-main-24.18.0-0.3.hum1 | * |
| Node-morgan | Ubuntu | questing | * |
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.
Related Attack Patterns
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/268.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/81.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/93.html