morgan is an HTTP request logger middleware for Node.js. In versions before 1.12.1, its escapeLogField() function does not escape the double quote character, which delimits the quoted fields of the Apache combined log format that morgan emits. An unauthenticated remote attacker who controls a value written to a quoted field, such as the User-Agent or Referer header, can include a double quote to close that field early, so a log consumer that parses the log by field position reads attacker-supplied text as the following field. In the built-in formats this makes the recorded value differ from the value that was sent, and in custom formats that quote an attacker-controlled token before a server-controlled one it can forge values such as the response status. No newline is injected, so record separation stays intact. The issue is fixed in morgan 1.12.1, which escapes the double quote. Users should upgrade to morgan 1.12.1 or later.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Node-morgan | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
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