ghsa-wmv4-5w76-vp9g
Vulnerability from github
Published
2020-09-15 20:16
Modified
2024-04-16 16:11
Severity ?
Summary
Authorization Bypass in Spring Security
Details

When using Spring Security's CAS Proxy ticket authentication a malicious CAS Service could trick another CAS Service into authenticating a proxy ticket that was not associated. This is due to the fact that the proxy ticket authentication uses the information from the HttpServletRequest which is populated based upon untrusted information within the HTTP request.

This means if there are access control restrictions on which CAS services can authenticate to one another, those restrictions can be bypassed.

If users are not using CAS Proxy tickets and not basing access control decisions based upon the CAS Service, then there is no impact to users.

Mitigation

Users of affected versions should apply the following mitigation: - Users of 3.2x should upgrade to 3.2.5 or later - Users of 3.1.x should upgrade to 3.1.7 or later

Credit

This issue was identified by David Ohsie and brought to our attention by the CAS Development team.

Show details on source website


{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.springframework.security:spring-security-core"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "3.1.7"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.springframework.security:spring-security-core"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "3.2.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "3.2.5"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2014-3527"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-287"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2020-09-15T20:16:07Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2017-05-25T17:29:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "When using Spring Security\u0027s CAS Proxy ticket authentication a malicious CAS Service could trick another CAS Service into authenticating a proxy ticket that was not associated. This is due to the fact that the proxy ticket authentication uses the information from the HttpServletRequest which is populated based upon untrusted information within the HTTP request.\n\nThis means if there are access control restrictions on which CAS services can authenticate to one another, those restrictions can be bypassed.\n\nIf users are not using CAS Proxy tickets and not basing access control decisions based upon the CAS Service, then there is no impact to users.\n\n## Mitigation\nUsers of affected versions should apply the following mitigation:\n- Users of 3.2x should upgrade to 3.2.5 or later\n- Users of 3.1.x should upgrade to 3.1.7 or later\n\n## Credit\nThis issue was identified by David Ohsie and brought to our attention by the CAS Development team.",
  "id": "GHSA-wmv4-5w76-vp9g",
  "modified": "2024-04-16T16:11:56Z",
  "published": "2020-09-15T20:16:22Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-3527"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-security/issues/2907"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-security/commit/934937d9c1dc20c396b96c08310b72cfa627acb"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-security"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2014-3527"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Authorization Bypass in Spring Security"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading...

Loading...

Loading...
  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.