GSD-2022-35949

Vulnerability from gsd - Updated: 2023-12-13 01:19
Details
undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`undici` is vulnerable to SSRF (Server-side Request Forgery) when an application takes in **user input** into the `path/pathname` option of `undici.request`. If a user specifies a URL such as `http://127.0.0.1` or `//127.0.0.1` ```js const undici = require("undici") undici.request({origin: "http://example.com", pathname: "//127.0.0.1"}) ``` Instead of processing the request as `http://example.org//127.0.0.1` (or `http://example.org/http://127.0.0.1` when `http://127.0.0.1 is used`), it actually processes the request as `http://127.0.0.1/` and sends it to `http://127.0.0.1`. If a developer passes in user input into `path` parameter of `undici.request`, it can result in an _SSRF_ as they will assume that the hostname cannot change, when in actual fact it can change because the specified path parameter is combined with the base URL. This issue was fixed in `undici@5.8.1`. The best workaround is to validate user input before passing it to the `undici.request` call.
Aliases
Aliases
CVE-2022-35949
To clipboard 

{
  "GSD": {
    "alias": "CVE-2022-35949",
    "description": "undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`undici` is vulnerable to SSRF (Server-side Request Forgery) when an application takes in **user input** into the `path/pathname` option of `undici.request`. If a user specifies a URL such as `http://127.0.0.1` or `//127.0.0.1` ```js const undici = require(\"undici\") undici.request({origin: \"http://example.com\", pathname: \"//127.0.0.1\"}) ``` Instead of processing the request as `http://example.org//127.0.0.1` (or `http://example.org/http://127.0.0.1` when `http://127.0.0.1 is used`), it actually processes the request as `http://127.0.0.1/` and sends it to `http://127.0.0.1`. If a developer passes in user input into `path` parameter of `undici.request`, it can result in an _SSRF_ as they will assume that the hostname cannot change, when in actual fact it can change because the specified path parameter is combined with the base URL. This issue was fixed in `undici@5.8.1`. The best workaround is to validate user input before passing it to the `undici.request` call.",
    "id": "GSD-2022-35949",
    "references": [
      "https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2022-35949.html"
    ]
  },
  "gsd": {
    "metadata": {
      "exploitCode": "unknown",
      "remediation": "unknown",
      "reportConfidence": "confirmed",
      "type": "vulnerability"
    },
    "osvSchema": {
      "aliases": [
        "CVE-2022-35949"
      ],
      "details": "undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`undici` is vulnerable to SSRF (Server-side Request Forgery) when an application takes in **user input** into the `path/pathname` option of `undici.request`. If a user specifies a URL such as `http://127.0.0.1` or `//127.0.0.1` ```js const undici = require(\"undici\") undici.request({origin: \"http://example.com\", pathname: \"//127.0.0.1\"}) ``` Instead of processing the request as `http://example.org//127.0.0.1` (or `http://example.org/http://127.0.0.1` when `http://127.0.0.1 is used`), it actually processes the request as `http://127.0.0.1/` and sends it to `http://127.0.0.1`. If a developer passes in user input into `path` parameter of `undici.request`, it can result in an _SSRF_ as they will assume that the hostname cannot change, when in actual fact it can change because the specified path parameter is combined with the base URL. This issue was fixed in `undici@5.8.1`. The best workaround is to validate user input before passing it to the `undici.request` call.",
      "id": "GSD-2022-35949",
      "modified": "2023-12-13T01:19:33.582016Z",
      "schema_version": "1.4.0"
    }
  },
  "namespaces": {
    "cve.org": {
      "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com",
        "ID": "CVE-2022-35949",
        "STATE": "PUBLIC",
        "TITLE": "`undici.request` vulnerable to SSRF using absolute URL on `pathname`"
      },
      "affects": {
        "vendor": {
          "vendor_data": [
            {
              "product": {
                "product_data": [
                  {
                    "product_name": "undici",
                    "version": {
                      "version_data": [
                        {
                          "version_value": "\u003c= 5.8.1"
                        }
                      ]
                    }
                  }
                ]
              },
              "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.`undici` is vulnerable to SSRF (Server-side Request Forgery) when an application takes in **user input** into the `path/pathname` option of `undici.request`. If a user specifies a URL such as `http://127.0.0.1` or `//127.0.0.1` ```js const undici = require(\"undici\") undici.request({origin: \"http://example.com\", pathname: \"//127.0.0.1\"}) ``` Instead of processing the request as `http://example.org//127.0.0.1` (or `http://example.org/http://127.0.0.1` when `http://127.0.0.1 is used`), it actually processes the request as `http://127.0.0.1/` and sends it to `http://127.0.0.1`. If a developer passes in user input into `path` parameter of `undici.request`, it can result in an _SSRF_ as they will assume that the hostname cannot change, when in actual fact it can change because the specified path parameter is combined with the base URL. This issue was fixed in `undici@5.8.1`. The best workaround is to validate user input before passing it to the `undici.request` call."
          }
        ]
      },
      "impact": {
        "cvss": {
          "attackComplexity": "HIGH",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
          "baseScore": 6.4,
          "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
          "confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
          "integrityImpact": "LOW",
          "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
          "scope": "UNCHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
          "version": "3.1"
        }
      },
      "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)"
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "references": {
        "reference_data": [
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-8qr4-xgw6-wmr3",
            "refsource": "CONFIRM",
            "url": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-8qr4-xgw6-wmr3"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/commit/124f7ebf705366b2e1844dff721928d270f87895",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/commit/124f7ebf705366b2e1844dff721928d270f87895"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/releases/tag/v5.8.2",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/releases/tag/v5.8.2"
          }
        ]
      },
      "source": {
        "advisory": "GHSA-8qr4-xgw6-wmr3",
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      }
    },
    "gitlab.com": {
      "advisories": [
        {
          "affected_range": "\u003c=5.8.1",
          "affected_versions": "All versions up to 5.8.1",
          "cvss_v3": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
          "cwe_ids": [
            "CWE-1035",
            "CWE-918",
            "CWE-937"
          ],
          "date": "2023-03-28",
          "description": "undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`undici` is vulnerable to SSRF (Server-side Request Forgery) when an application takes in **user input** into the `path/pathname` option of `undici.request`. If a user specifies a URL such as `http://127.0.0.1` or `//127.0.0.1` ```js const undici = require(\"undici\") undici.request({origin: \"http://example.com\", pathname: \"//127.0.0.1\"}) ``` Instead of processing the request as `http://example.org//127.0.0.1` (or `http://example.org/http://127.0.0.1` when `http://127.0.0.1 is used`), it actually processes the request as `http://127.0.0.1/` and sends it to `http://127.0.0.1`. If a developer passes in user input into `path` parameter of `undici.request`, it can result in an _SSRF_ as they will assume that the hostname cannot change, when in actual fact it can change because the specified path parameter is combined with the base URL. This issue was fixed in `undici@5.8.1`. The best workaround is to validate user input before passing it to the `undici.request` call.",
          "fixed_versions": [
            "5.8.2"
          ],
          "identifier": "CVE-2022-35949",
          "identifiers": [
            "CVE-2022-35949",
            "GHSA-8qr4-xgw6-wmr3"
          ],
          "not_impacted": "All versions after 5.8.1",
          "package_slug": "npm/undici",
          "pubdate": "2022-08-12",
          "solution": "Upgrade to version 5.8.2 or above.",
          "title": "Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)",
          "urls": [
            "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-35949",
            "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-8qr4-xgw6-wmr3",
            "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/releases/tag/v5.8.2",
            "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/commit/124f7ebf705366b2e1844dff721928d270f87895"
          ],
          "uuid": "a54bc49a-fa85-4d70-8bc2-58c6cbc6f5a9"
        }
      ]
    },
    "nvd.nist.gov": {
      "configurations": {
        "CVE_data_version": "4.0",
        "nodes": [
          {
            "children": [],
            "cpe_match": [
              {
                "cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:nodejs:undici:*:*:*:*:*:node.js:*:*",
                "cpe_name": [],
                "versionEndIncluding": "5.8.1",
                "vulnerable": true
              }
            ],
            "operator": "OR"
          }
        ]
      },
      "cve": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com",
          "ID": "CVE-2022-35949"
        },
        "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.`undici` is vulnerable to SSRF (Server-side Request Forgery) when an application takes in **user input** into the `path/pathname` option of `undici.request`. If a user specifies a URL such as `http://127.0.0.1` or `//127.0.0.1` ```js const undici = require(\"undici\") undici.request({origin: \"http://example.com\", pathname: \"//127.0.0.1\"}) ``` Instead of processing the request as `http://example.org//127.0.0.1` (or `http://example.org/http://127.0.0.1` when `http://127.0.0.1 is used`), it actually processes the request as `http://127.0.0.1/` and sends it to `http://127.0.0.1`. If a developer passes in user input into `path` parameter of `undici.request`, it can result in an _SSRF_ as they will assume that the hostname cannot change, when in actual fact it can change because the specified path parameter is combined with the base URL. This issue was fixed in `undici@5.8.1`. The best workaround is to validate user input before passing it to the `undici.request` call."
            }
          ]
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "en",
                  "value": "CWE-918"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-8qr4-xgw6-wmr3",
              "refsource": "CONFIRM",
              "tags": [
                "Exploit",
                "Mitigation",
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/security/advisories/GHSA-8qr4-xgw6-wmr3"
            },
            {
              "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/124f7ebf705366b2e1844dff721928d270f87895",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Patch",
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://github.com/nodejs/undici/commit/124f7ebf705366b2e1844dff721928d270f87895"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "impact": {
        "baseMetricV3": {
          "cvssV3": {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
            "baseScore": 9.8,
            "baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
            "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
            "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
            "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
            "scope": "UNCHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
            "version": "3.1"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
          "impactScore": 5.9
        }
      },
      "lastModifiedDate": "2023-03-28T17:10Z",
      "publishedDate": "2022-08-12T23:15Z"
    }
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




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.



Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.