gsd-2022-35948
Vulnerability from gsd
Modified
2023-12-13 01:19
Details
undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`=< undici@5.8.0` users are vulnerable to _CRLF Injection_ on headers when using unsanitized input as request headers, more specifically, inside the `content-type` header. Example: ``` import { request } from 'undici' const unsanitizedContentTypeInput = 'application/json\r\n\r\nGET /foo2 HTTP/1.1' await request('http://localhost:3000, { method: 'GET', headers: { 'content-type': unsanitizedContentTypeInput }, }) ``` The above snippet will perform two requests in a single `request` API call: 1) `http://localhost:3000/` 2) `http://localhost:3000/foo2` This issue was patched in Undici v5.8.1. Sanitize input when sending content-type headers using user input as a workaround.
Aliases
Aliases
{ "GSD": { "alias": "CVE-2022-35948", "description": "undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`=\u003c undici@5.8.0` users are vulnerable to _CRLF Injection_ on headers when using unsanitized input as request headers, more specifically, inside the `content-type` header. Example: ``` import { request } from \u0027undici\u0027 const unsanitizedContentTypeInput = \u0027application/json\\r\\n\\r\\nGET /foo2 HTTP/1.1\u0027 await request(\u0027http://localhost:3000, { method: \u0027GET\u0027, headers: { \u0027content-type\u0027: unsanitizedContentTypeInput }, }) ``` The above snippet will perform two requests in a single `request` API call: 1) `http://localhost:3000/` 2) `http://localhost:3000/foo2` This issue was patched in Undici v5.8.1. Sanitize input when sending content-type headers using user input as a workaround.", "id": "GSD-2022-35948", "references": [ "https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2022-35948.html" ] }, "gsd": { "metadata": { "exploitCode": "unknown", "remediation": "unknown", "reportConfidence": "confirmed", "type": "vulnerability" }, "osvSchema": { "aliases": [ "CVE-2022-35948" ], "details": "undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`=\u003c undici@5.8.0` users are vulnerable to _CRLF Injection_ on headers when using unsanitized input as request headers, more specifically, inside the `content-type` header. Example: ``` import { request } from \u0027undici\u0027 const unsanitizedContentTypeInput = \u0027application/json\\r\\n\\r\\nGET /foo2 HTTP/1.1\u0027 await request(\u0027http://localhost:3000, { method: \u0027GET\u0027, headers: { \u0027content-type\u0027: unsanitizedContentTypeInput }, }) ``` The above snippet will perform two requests in a single `request` API call: 1) `http://localhost:3000/` 2) `http://localhost:3000/foo2` This issue was patched in Undici v5.8.1. Sanitize input when sending content-type headers using user input as a workaround.", "id": "GSD-2022-35948", "modified": "2023-12-13T01:19:33.947982Z", "schema_version": "1.4.0" } }, "namespaces": { "cve.org": { "CVE_data_meta": { "ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com", "ID": "CVE-2022-35948", "STATE": "PUBLIC", "TITLE": "CRLF Injection in Nodejs \u2018undici\u2019 via Content-Type" }, "affects": { "vendor": { "vendor_data": [ { "product": { "product_data": [ { "product_name": "undici", "version": { "version_data": [ { "version_value": "=\u003c 5.8.0" } ] } } ] }, "vendor_name": "nodejs" } ] } }, "data_format": "MITRE", "data_type": "CVE", "data_version": "4.0", "description": { "description_data": [ { "lang": "eng", "value": "undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`=\u003c undici@5.8.0` users are vulnerable to _CRLF Injection_ on headers when using unsanitized input as request headers, more specifically, inside the `content-type` header. Example: ``` import { request } from \u0027undici\u0027 const unsanitizedContentTypeInput = \u0027application/json\\r\\n\\r\\nGET /foo2 HTTP/1.1\u0027 await request(\u0027http://localhost:3000, { method: \u0027GET\u0027, headers: { \u0027content-type\u0027: unsanitizedContentTypeInput }, }) ``` The above snippet will perform two requests in a single `request` API call: 1) `http://localhost:3000/` 2) `http://localhost:3000/foo2` This issue was patched in Undici v5.8.1. Sanitize input when sending content-type headers using user input as a workaround." } ] }, "impact": { "cvss": { "attackComplexity": "HIGH", "attackVector": "NETWORK", "availabilityImpact": "HIGH", "baseScore": 7.1, "baseSeverity": "HIGH", "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH", "integrityImpact": "LOW", "privilegesRequired": "LOW", "scope": "UNCHANGED", "userInteraction": "NONE", "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N", "version": "3.1" } }, "problemtype": { "problemtype_data": [ { "description": [ { "lang": "eng", "value": "CWE-93: Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences (\u0027CRLF Injection\u0027)" } ] }, { "description": [ { "lang": "eng", "value": "CWE-74: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component (\u0027Injection\u0027)" } ] } ] }, "references": { "reference_data": [ { "name": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/releases/tag/v5.8.2", "refsource": "MISC", "url": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/releases/tag/v5.8.2" }, { "name": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-f772-66g8-q5h3", "refsource": "CONFIRM", "url": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-f772-66g8-q5h3" }, { "name": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/commit/66165d604fd0aee70a93ed5c44ad4cc2df395f80", "refsource": "MISC", "url": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/commit/66165d604fd0aee70a93ed5c44ad4cc2df395f80" } ] }, "source": { "advisory": "GHSA-f772-66g8-q5h3", "discovery": "UNKNOWN" } }, "gitlab.com": { "advisories": [ { "affected_range": "\u003c5.8.2", "affected_versions": "All versions before 5.8.2", "cvss_v3": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N", "cwe_ids": [ "CWE-1035", "CWE-74", "CWE-937" ], "date": "2023-03-28", "description": "undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`=\u003c undici@5.8.0` users is vulnerable to _CRLF Injection_ on headers when using unsanitized input as request headers, more specifically, inside the `content-type` header. Example: ``` import { request } from \u0027undici\u0027 const unsanitizedContentTypeInput = \u0027application/json\\r\\n\\r\\nGET /foo2 HTTP/1.1\u0027 await request(\u0027http://localhost:3000, { method: \u0027GET\u0027, headers: { \u0027content-type\u0027: unsanitizedContentTypeInput }, }) ``` The above snippet will perform two requests in a single `request` API call: 1) `http://localhost:3000/` 2) `http://localhost:3000/foo2` This issue was patched in Undici v5.8.1. Sanitize input when sending content-type headers using user input as a workaround.", "fixed_versions": [ "5.8.2" ], "identifier": "CVE-2022-35948", "identifiers": [ "CVE-2022-35948", "GHSA-f772-66g8-q5h3" ], "not_impacted": "All versions starting from 5.8.2", "package_slug": "npm/undici", "pubdate": "2022-08-15", "solution": "Upgrade to version 5.8.2 or above.", "title": "Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component (\u0027Injection\u0027)", "urls": [ "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-35948", "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-f772-66g8-q5h3", "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/releases/tag/v5.8.2", "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/commit/66165d604fd0aee70a93ed5c44ad4cc2df395f80" ], "uuid": "1c941332-5d09-40e0-9682-12ad26ed3894" } ] }, "nvd.nist.gov": { "configurations": { "CVE_data_version": "4.0", "nodes": [ { "children": [], "cpe_match": [ { "cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:nodejs:undici:*:*:*:*:*:node.js:*:*", "cpe_name": [], "versionEndExcluding": "5.8.2", "vulnerable": true } ], "operator": "OR" } ] }, "cve": { "CVE_data_meta": { "ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com", "ID": "CVE-2022-35948" }, "data_format": "MITRE", "data_type": "CVE", "data_version": "4.0", "description": { "description_data": [ { "lang": "en", "value": "undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`=\u003c undici@5.8.0` users are vulnerable to _CRLF Injection_ on headers when using unsanitized input as request headers, more specifically, inside the `content-type` header. Example: ``` import { request } from \u0027undici\u0027 const unsanitizedContentTypeInput = \u0027application/json\\r\\n\\r\\nGET /foo2 HTTP/1.1\u0027 await request(\u0027http://localhost:3000, { method: \u0027GET\u0027, headers: { \u0027content-type\u0027: unsanitizedContentTypeInput }, }) ``` The above snippet will perform two requests in a single `request` API call: 1) `http://localhost:3000/` 2) `http://localhost:3000/foo2` This issue was patched in Undici v5.8.1. Sanitize input when sending content-type headers using user input as a workaround." } ] }, "problemtype": { "problemtype_data": [ { "description": [ { "lang": "en", "value": "CWE-74" }, { "lang": "en", "value": "CWE-93" } ] } ] }, "references": { "reference_data": [ { "name": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-f772-66g8-q5h3", "refsource": "CONFIRM", "tags": [ "Exploit", "Third Party Advisory" ], "url": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-f772-66g8-q5h3" }, { "name": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/releases/tag/v5.8.2", "refsource": "MISC", "tags": [ "Release Notes", "Third Party Advisory" ], "url": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/releases/tag/v5.8.2" }, { "name": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/commit/66165d604fd0aee70a93ed5c44ad4cc2df395f80", "refsource": "MISC", "tags": [ "Patch", "Third Party Advisory" ], "url": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/commit/66165d604fd0aee70a93ed5c44ad4cc2df395f80" } ] } }, "impact": { "baseMetricV3": { "cvssV3": { "attackComplexity": "LOW", "attackVector": "NETWORK", "availabilityImpact": "NONE", "baseScore": 5.3, "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM", "confidentialityImpact": "NONE", "integrityImpact": "LOW", "privilegesRequired": "NONE", "scope": "UNCHANGED", "userInteraction": "NONE", "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N", "version": "3.1" }, "exploitabilityScore": 3.9, "impactScore": 1.4 } }, "lastModifiedDate": "2023-03-28T17:08Z", "publishedDate": "2022-08-15T11:21Z" } } }
Loading...
Loading...
Sightings
Author | Source | Type | Date |
---|
Nomenclature
- 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.