GSD-2016-6582

Vulnerability from gsd - Updated: 2016-08-18 00:00
Details
Doorkeeper failed to implement OAuth 2.0 Token Revocation (RFC 7009) in the following ways: 1. Public clients making valid, unauthenticated calls to revoke a token would not have their token revoked 2. Requests were not properly authenticating the *client credentials* but were, instead, looking at the access token in a second location 3. Because of 2, the requests were also not authorizing confidential clients' ability to revoke a given token. It should only revoke tokens that belong to it. The security implication is: OAuth 2.0 clients who "log out" a user expect to have the corresponding access & refresh tokens revoked, preventing an attacker who may have already hijacked the session from continuing to impersonate the victim. Because of the bug described above, this is not the case. As far as OWASP is concerned, this counts as broken authentication design. MITRE has assigned CVE-2016-6582 due to the security issues raised. An attacker, thanks to 1, can replay a hijacked session after a victim logs out/revokes their token. Additionally, thanks to 2 & 3, an attacker via a compromised confidential client could "grief" other clients by revoking their tokens (albeit this is an exceptionally narrow attack with little value).
Aliases
Aliases
CVE-2016-6582
To clipboard 

{
  "GSD": {
    "alias": "CVE-2016-6582",
    "description": "The Doorkeeper gem before 4.2.0 for Ruby might allow remote attackers to conduct replay attacks or revoke arbitrary tokens by leveraging failure to implement the OAuth 2.0 Token Revocation specification.",
    "id": "GSD-2016-6582"
  },
  "gsd": {
    "metadata": {
      "exploitCode": "unknown",
      "remediation": "unknown",
      "reportConfidence": "confirmed",
      "type": "vulnerability"
    },
    "osvSchema": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "package": {
            "ecosystem": "RubyGems",
            "name": "doorkeeper",
            "purl": "pkg:gem/doorkeeper"
          }
        }
      ],
      "aliases": [
        "CVE-2016-6582",
        "GHSA-3m6r-39p3-jq25"
      ],
      "details": "Doorkeeper failed to implement OAuth 2.0 Token Revocation (RFC 7009) in the\nfollowing ways:\n\n1. Public clients making valid, unauthenticated calls to revoke a token\n   would not have their token revoked\n2. Requests were not properly authenticating the *client credentials* but\n   were, instead, looking at the access token in a second location\n3. Because of 2, the requests were also not authorizing confidential\n   clients\u0027 ability to revoke a given token. It should only revoke tokens\n   that belong to it.\n\nThe security implication is: OAuth 2.0 clients who \"log out\" a user expect\nto have the corresponding access \u0026 refresh tokens revoked, preventing an\nattacker who may have already hijacked the session from continuing to\nimpersonate the victim. Because of the bug described above, this is not the\ncase. As far as OWASP is concerned, this counts as broken authentication\ndesign.\n\nMITRE has assigned CVE-2016-6582 due to the security issues raised. An\nattacker, thanks to 1, can replay a hijacked session after a victim logs\nout/revokes their token. Additionally, thanks to 2 \u0026 3, an attacker via a\ncompromised confidential client could \"grief\" other clients by revoking\ntheir tokens (albeit this is an exceptionally narrow attack with little\nvalue).\n",
      "id": "GSD-2016-6582",
      "modified": "2016-08-18T00:00:00.000Z",
      "published": "2016-08-18T00:00:00.000Z",
      "references": [
        {
          "type": "WEB",
          "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/08/19/2"
        },
        {
          "type": "WEB",
          "url": "https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/commit/fb938051777a3c9cb071e96fc66458f8f615bd53"
        }
      ],
      "schema_version": "1.4.0",
      "severity": [
        {
          "score": 9.1,
          "type": "CVSS_V3"
        }
      ],
      "summary": "Doorkeeper gem does not revoke tokens \u0026 uses wrong auth/auth method"
    }
  },
  "namespaces": {
    "cve.org": {
      "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
        "ID": "CVE-2016-6582",
        "STATE": "PUBLIC"
      },
      "affects": {
        "vendor": {
          "vendor_data": [
            {
              "product": {
                "product_data": [
                  {
                    "product_name": "n/a",
                    "version": {
                      "version_data": [
                        {
                          "version_value": "n/a"
                        }
                      ]
                    }
                  }
                ]
              },
              "vendor_name": "n/a"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "data_format": "MITRE",
      "data_type": "CVE",
      "data_version": "4.0",
      "description": {
        "description_data": [
          {
            "lang": "eng",
            "value": "The Doorkeeper gem before 4.2.0 for Ruby might allow remote attackers to conduct replay attacks or revoke arbitrary tokens by leveraging failure to implement the OAuth 2.0 Token Revocation specification."
          }
        ]
      },
      "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "n/a"
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "references": {
        "reference_data": [
          {
            "name": "92551",
            "refsource": "BID",
            "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/92551"
          },
          {
            "name": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/138430/Doorkeeper-4.1.0-Token-Revocation.html",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/138430/Doorkeeper-4.1.0-Token-Revocation.html"
          },
          {
            "name": "20160818 [CVE-2016-6582] Doorkeeper gem does not revoke tokens \u0026 uses wrong auth/auth method",
            "refsource": "BUGTRAQ",
            "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/539268/100/0/threaded"
          },
          {
            "name": "20160822 [CVE-2016-6582] Doorkeeper gem does not revoke tokens \u0026 uses wrong auth/auth method",
            "refsource": "FULLDISC",
            "url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2016/Aug/105"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/releases/tag/v4.2.0",
            "refsource": "CONFIRM",
            "url": "https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/releases/tag/v4.2.0"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/issues/875",
            "refsource": "CONFIRM",
            "url": "https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/issues/875"
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    "github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db": {
      "cve": "2016-6582",
      "cvss_v3": 9.1,
      "date": "2016-08-18",
      "description": "Doorkeeper failed to implement OAuth 2.0 Token Revocation (RFC 7009) in the\nfollowing ways:\n\n1. Public clients making valid, unauthenticated calls to revoke a token\n   would not have their token revoked\n2. Requests were not properly authenticating the *client credentials* but\n   were, instead, looking at the access token in a second location\n3. Because of 2, the requests were also not authorizing confidential\n   clients\u0027 ability to revoke a given token. It should only revoke tokens\n   that belong to it.\n\nThe security implication is: OAuth 2.0 clients who \"log out\" a user expect\nto have the corresponding access \u0026 refresh tokens revoked, preventing an\nattacker who may have already hijacked the session from continuing to\nimpersonate the victim. Because of the bug described above, this is not the\ncase. As far as OWASP is concerned, this counts as broken authentication\ndesign.\n\nMITRE has assigned CVE-2016-6582 due to the security issues raised. An\nattacker, thanks to 1, can replay a hijacked session after a victim logs\nout/revokes their token. Additionally, thanks to 2 \u0026 3, an attacker via a\ncompromised confidential client could \"grief\" other clients by revoking\ntheir tokens (albeit this is an exceptionally narrow attack with little\nvalue).\n",
      "gem": "doorkeeper",
      "ghsa": "3m6r-39p3-jq25",
      "patched_versions": [
        "\u003e= 4.2.0"
      ],
      "related": {
        "url": [
          "https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/commit/fb938051777a3c9cb071e96fc66458f8f615bd53"
        ]
      },
      "title": "Doorkeeper gem does not revoke tokens \u0026 uses wrong auth/auth method",
      "unaffected_versions": [
        "\u003c 1.2.0"
      ],
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/08/19/2"
    },
    "gitlab.com": {
      "advisories": [
        {
          "affected_range": "\u003c4.2.0",
          "affected_versions": "All versions before 4.2.0",
          "credit": "Justin Bull (@f3ndot)",
          "cvss_v2": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:P",
          "cvss_v3": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
          "cwe_ids": [
            "CWE-1035",
            "CWE-254",
            "CWE-937"
          ],
          "date": "2018-10-09",
          "description": "Doorkeeper failed to implement OAuth Token Revocation (RFC ) in the following ways: Public clients making valid, unauthenticated calls to revoke a token would not have their token revoked Requests were not properly authenticating the *client credentials* but were, instead, looking at the access token in a second location Because of 2, the requests were also not authorizing confidential clients\u0027 ability to revoke a given token. It should only revoke tokens that belong to it. The security implication is: OAuth clients who \"log out\" a user expect to have the corresponding access \u0026 refresh tokens revoked, preventing an attacker who may have already hijacked the session from continuing to impersonate the victim. Because of the bug described above, this is not the case. As far as OWASP is concerned, this counts as broken authentication design. MITRE has assigned CVE-2016-6582 due to the security issues raised. An attacker, thanks to 1, can replay a hijacked session after a victim logs out/revokes their token. Additionally, thanks to 2 \u0026 3, an attacker via a compromised confidential client could \"grief\" other clients by revoking their tokens (albeit this is an exceptionally narrow attack with little value).",
          "fixed_versions": [
            "4.2.0"
          ],
          "identifier": "CVE-2016-6582",
          "identifiers": [
            "CVE-2016-6582"
          ],
          "not_impacted": "All versions starting from 4.2.0",
          "package_slug": "gem/doorkeeper",
          "pubdate": "2017-01-23",
          "solution": "Upgrade to version 4.2.0 or above.",
          "title": "Broken token revocation, wrong auth/auth method",
          "urls": [
            "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/08/19/2",
            "https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/commit/fb938051777a3c9cb071e96fc66458f8f615bd53",
            "https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/issues/875"
          ],
          "uuid": "0640b4d2-4420-4840-b5dd-6f07f8865408"
        }
      ]
    },
    "nvd.nist.gov": {
      "configurations": {
        "CVE_data_version": "4.0",
        "nodes": [
          {
            "children": [],
            "cpe_match": [
              {
                "cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:doorkeeper_project:doorkeeper:*:*:*:*:*:ruby:*:*",
                "cpe_name": [],
                "versionEndIncluding": "4.1.0",
                "vulnerable": true
              }
            ],
            "operator": "OR"
          }
        ]
      },
      "cve": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
          "ID": "CVE-2016-6582"
        },
        "data_format": "MITRE",
        "data_type": "CVE",
        "data_version": "4.0",
        "description": {
          "description_data": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "The Doorkeeper gem before 4.2.0 for Ruby might allow remote attackers to conduct replay attacks or revoke arbitrary tokens by leveraging failure to implement the OAuth 2.0 Token Revocation specification."
            }
          ]
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "en",
                  "value": "CWE-254"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/releases/tag/v4.2.0",
              "refsource": "CONFIRM",
              "tags": [
                "Issue Tracking",
                "Patch",
                "Third Party Advisory",
                "Release Notes"
              ],
              "url": "https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/releases/tag/v4.2.0"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/issues/875",
              "refsource": "CONFIRM",
              "tags": [
                "Issue Tracking",
                "Patch",
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/issues/875"
            },
            {
              "name": "92551",
              "refsource": "BID",
              "tags": [
                "Third Party Advisory",
                "VDB Entry"
              ],
              "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/92551"
            },
            {
              "name": "20160822 [CVE-2016-6582] Doorkeeper gem does not revoke tokens \u0026 uses wrong auth/auth method",
              "refsource": "FULLDISC",
              "tags": [
                "Mailing List",
                "Patch",
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2016/Aug/105"
            },
            {
              "name": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/138430/Doorkeeper-4.1.0-Token-Revocation.html",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Third Party Advisory",
                "VDB Entry"
              ],
              "url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/138430/Doorkeeper-4.1.0-Token-Revocation.html"
            },
            {
              "name": "20160818 [CVE-2016-6582] Doorkeeper gem does not revoke tokens \u0026 uses wrong auth/auth method",
              "refsource": "BUGTRAQ",
              "tags": [],
              "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/539268/100/0/threaded"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "impact": {
        "baseMetricV2": {
          "cvssV2": {
            "accessComplexity": "LOW",
            "accessVector": "NETWORK",
            "authentication": "NONE",
            "availabilityImpact": "PARTIAL",
            "baseScore": 6.4,
            "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL",
            "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:P",
            "version": "2.0"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 10.0,
          "impactScore": 4.9,
          "obtainAllPrivilege": false,
          "obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
          "obtainUserPrivilege": false,
          "severity": "MEDIUM",
          "userInteractionRequired": false
        },
        "baseMetricV3": {
          "cvssV3": {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
            "baseScore": 9.1,
            "baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
            "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
            "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
            "scope": "UNCHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
            "version": "3.0"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
          "impactScore": 5.2
        }
      },
      "lastModifiedDate": "2018-10-09T20:00Z",
      "publishedDate": "2017-01-23T21:59Z"
    }
  }
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

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.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Loading timeline…




    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.