GHSA-Q68W-FQ74-6JP9

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-22 21:30 – Updated: 2025-04-15 18:31
VLAI?
Details

If a Thunderbird user replied to a crafted HTML email containing a meta tag, with the meta tag having the http-equiv="refresh" attribute, and the content attribute specifying an URL, then Thunderbird started a network request to that URL, regardless of the configuration to block remote content. In combination with certain other HTML elements and attributes in the email, it was possible to execute JavaScript code included in the message in the context of the message compose document. The JavaScript code was able to perform actions including, but probably not limited to, read and modify the contents of the message compose document, including the quoted original message, which could potentially contain the decrypted plaintext of encrypted data in the crafted email. The contents could then be transmitted to the network, either to the URL specified in the META refresh tag, or to a different URL, as the JavaScript code could modify the URL specified in the document. This bug doesn't affect users who have changed the default Message Body display setting to 'simple html' or 'plain text'. This vulnerability affects Thunderbird < 102.2.1 and Thunderbird < 91.13.1.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-3033"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79",
      "CWE-94"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-12-22T20:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "If a Thunderbird user replied to a crafted HTML email containing a \u003ccode\u003emeta\u003c/code\u003e tag, with the \u003ccode\u003emeta\u003c/code\u003e tag having the \u003ccode\u003ehttp-equiv=\"refresh\"\u003c/code\u003e attribute, and the content attribute specifying an URL, then Thunderbird started a network request to that URL, regardless of the configuration to block remote content. In combination with certain other HTML elements and attributes in the email, it was possible to execute JavaScript code included in the message in the context of the message compose document. The JavaScript code was able to perform actions including, but probably not limited to, read and modify the contents of the message compose document, including the quoted original message, which could potentially contain the decrypted plaintext of encrypted data in the crafted email. The contents could then be transmitted to the network, either to the URL specified in the META refresh tag, or to a different URL, as the JavaScript code could modify the URL specified in the document. This bug doesn\u0027t affect users who have changed the default Message Body display setting to \u0027simple html\u0027 or \u0027plain text\u0027. This vulnerability affects Thunderbird \u003c 102.2.1 and Thunderbird \u003c 91.13.1.",
  "id": "GHSA-q68w-fq74-6jp9",
  "modified": "2025-04-15T18:31:33Z",
  "published": "2022-12-22T21:30:28Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-3033"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1784838"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2022-38"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2022-39"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…