Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
219 lines (168 loc) · 14.2 KB

vulnerabilities-workflow-1.md

File metadata and controls

219 lines (168 loc) · 14.2 KB

Okay, I understand the request. I will combine the three lists of vulnerabilities into a single list, removing duplicates and formatting the output as a markdown document with main paragraphs and subparagraphs for each vulnerability.

Here is the combined list of vulnerabilities:

Vulnerability List:

1. Client IP Address Spoofing via Untrusted Proxies

  • Description: Gin framework, by default, trusts all request headers like X-Forwarded-For to determine the client's IP address. If the application is deployed behind untrusted proxies or without proper configuration using SetTrustedProxies or TrustedPlatform, an external attacker can spoof their IP address by injecting or manipulating these headers. Step-by-step trigger:

    1. Identify an endpoint in a Gin application that uses c.ClientIP() to get the client's IP address for security-sensitive logic (e.g., rate limiting, access control, geolocation).
    2. Craft a malicious request to this endpoint, injecting a forged IP address in the X-Forwarded-For header (e.g., X-Forwarded-For: 1.2.3.4).
    3. Send the crafted request to the application.
    4. Observe the application's behavior. If the application relies on c.ClientIP() for security decisions without proper proxy configuration, it will use the spoofed IP address (1.2.3.4 in this example) instead of the actual client IP.

  • Impact: Successful IP address spoofing can lead to various security issues, including:

    • Bypassing rate limiting: An attacker can bypass rate limits by spoofing their IP address, making it appear as if requests are coming from multiple different clients.
    • Circumventing access control: If access control rules are based on IP addresses, an attacker can bypass these rules by spoofing an authorized IP address.
    • Geolocation bypass: Applications using geolocation based on IP address can be tricked into providing incorrect location-based content or services.
    • Session hijacking or account takeover: In some scenarios, if IP address is used as a factor in session management or authentication, spoofing IP address could potentially aid in session hijacking or account takeover.

  • Vulnerability Rank: high

  • Currently Implemented Mitigations: Gin framework provides SetTrustedProxies() and TrustedPlatform functions to configure trusted proxies, as documented in docs/doc.md. The context_test.go file contains test cases for ClientIP() function, demonstrating how trusted proxies can be configured. However, by default, Gin does not enforce trusted proxies and trusts all proxy headers. This means mitigation is available but not enabled by default and requires explicit configuration by the application developer.

  • Missing Mitigations: Gin framework lacks default secure configuration for handling proxy headers. Missing mitigations include:

    • Default to not trust any proxies: By default, Gin should be configured to not trust any proxy headers unless explicitly configured by the developer using SetTrustedProxies(nil). This would require developers to explicitly enable proxy support and configure trusted proxies, encouraging secure-by-default practices.
    • Clear security warning in default mode: When Gin is initialized in default mode (trusting all proxies), it should print a clear security warning to the console, advising developers to configure trusted proxies in production environments and highlighting the risks of IP spoofing.

  • Preconditions:

    • The Gin application must be deployed behind untrusted proxies or directly exposed to the internet without a CDN or load balancer that properly sanitizes or controls proxy headers.
    • The application must be using c.ClientIP() to obtain client IP addresses for security-sensitive logic.
    • The application must not have configured trusted proxies using router.SetTrustedProxies() or router.TrustedPlatform.

  • Source Code Analysis: The context_test.go file contains the TestContextClientIP function, which tests the ClientIP() logic. The default behavior of ClientIP() is to trust X-Forwarded-For and X-Real-IP headers if trusted proxies are not configured.

    func (c *Context) ClientIP() string {
    // ...

    if c.engine.trustedCIDRs == nil && c.engine.TrustedPlatform == "" { // default behavior: trust all proxies
        if xForwardedFor := c.requestHeader("X-Forwarded-For"); xForwardedFor != "" {
            ip := strings.SplitN(xForwardedFor, ",", 1)[0]
            return strings.TrimSpace(ip)
        }
        if xRealIP := c.requestHeader("X-Real-IP"); xRealIP != "" {
            return xRealIP
        }
        return c.RemoteIP() // Fallback to RemoteIP if no proxy headers
    }

    // ... (code for trusted proxies)
}

    Visualization:

    External Attacker --> HTTP Request (with forged X-Forwarded-For) --> Gin Application (c.ClientIP()) --> Security Logic (based on spoofed IP)

  • Security Test Case:

    1. Setup a Gin application with an endpoint that uses c.ClientIP() and reflects it back to the user:

      package main

import (
    "net/http"
    "github.com/gin-gonic/gin"
)

func main() {
    r := gin.Default()

    r.GET("/ip", func(c *gin.Context) {
        clientIP := c.ClientIP()
        c.String(http.StatusOK, "Your IP: %s", clientIP)
    })

    r.Run(":8080")
}

    2. Run the Gin application.

    3. Send a request to the /ip endpoint without any proxy headers:

      curl "http://localhost:8080/ip"

      Note down the returned IP address (Actual IP).

    4. Send another request, injecting a forged IP address using the X-Forwarded-For header:

      curl -H "X-Forwarded-For: 1.2.3.4" "http://localhost:8080/ip"

    5. Expected Result (Vulnerable): The response to the second curl command will show "Your IP: 1.2.3.4", confirming IP spoofing.

    6. Mitigation Test: Modify the application to disable trusting proxies by adding r.SetTrustedProxies(nil):

      r := gin.Default()
r.SetTrustedProxies(nil)

// ... rest of the code

      Re-run and repeat steps 3 and 4.

    7. Expected Result (Mitigated): The response to the second curl command will now show the Actual IP (from step 3), not "1.2.3.4", confirming mitigation.

2. Header Injection via Filename in Content-Disposition

  • Description: In Gin framework versions prior to 1.9.1, a header injection vulnerability exists due to insufficient escaping of the filename parameter in the Content-Disposition header when using functions like Context.Attachment or Context.FileAttachment to serve files. An attacker who can control the filename, typically through user-provided input such as query parameters or form data, can craft a malicious filename containing Carriage Return Line Feed (CRLF) characters (%0a and %0d). When the Gin application sets the Content-Disposition header with this unescaped filename, the CRLF characters are interpreted as header separators, allowing the attacker to inject arbitrary HTTP headers into the response. In Gin version 1.9.1 and later, this vulnerability is mitigated by properly escaping the filename.

    Step-by-step trigger for vulnerable versions (< 1.9.1):

    1. Identify an endpoint in a Gin application that uses c.FileAttachment, c.File, or c.Render with file download functionality and where the filename is derived from user-controlled data.
    2. Craft a malicious URL to this endpoint, providing a filename that includes URL-encoded CRLF characters (%0a, %0d) followed by the header(s) you want to inject (e.g., filename=malicious%0a%0aInjected-Header:%20Test-Value).
    3. Send the crafted request to the application.
    4. Observe the HTTP response headers. If the application is vulnerable, the injected header(s) will be present in the response.

  • Impact: Successful header injection can lead to a range of security issues:

    • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS): By injecting headers like Content-Type: text/html followed by HTML/JavaScript, XSS may be possible if the filename or related content is reflected in the response or error pages.
    • Setting malicious cookies: Attackers can inject Set-Cookie headers to set arbitrary cookies in the user's browser, potentially for session fixation or other malicious purposes.
    • Cache Poisoning: Injecting cache-related headers (Cache-Control, Expires) can manipulate caching behavior, leading to the delivery of stale or malicious content from caches.
    • Open Redirection: Although less direct with Content-Disposition, injecting a Location header could, in specific scenarios or when combined with other vulnerabilities, lead to open redirection.
    • Exploitation of Browser Vulnerabilities: Injected headers could potentially trigger browser-specific vulnerabilities or unexpected behaviors.

  • Vulnerability Rank: High

  • Currently Implemented Mitigations: The vulnerability is mitigated in Gin version 1.9.1 and later. The fix involves escaping the filename in the Content-Disposition header to prevent CRLF injection. This mitigation is confirmed by the CHANGELOG.md for v1.9.1 which states: "fix lack of escaping of filename in Content-Disposition [#3556]". Additionally, the context_test.go file includes the test TestContextRenderAndEscapeAttachment which verifies that filename escaping is implemented, specifically for characters like \"; \\\"; and likely including CRLF characters.

  • Missing Mitigations: For users who cannot immediately upgrade to Gin v1.9.1 or later, backporting the fix to older stable branches would be a beneficial mitigation strategy. Further strengthening mitigations could include:

    • Thoroughly verifying the completeness of CRLF character escaping and ensuring no bypasses exist, especially with different encoding schemes or complex filenames.
    • Implementing input validation for filenames before using them in Context.Attachment or Context.FileAttachment. This validation could reject filenames containing CRLF characters or other potentially dangerous characters outright, providing an additional layer of defense.
    • Conducting comprehensive security testing with diverse header injection payloads and techniques to validate the effectiveness of the current mitigation and identify any potential edge cases or bypasses across different browsers and HTTP clients.

  • Preconditions:

    • The Gin application must be using a version prior to 1.9.1 to be vulnerable to header injection. Versions 1.9.1 and later are mitigated.
    • The application must utilize Context.FileAttachment, Context.File, or Context.Render with file download functionality.
    • An external attacker must have the ability to influence the filename parameter used in these functions, typically through user-controlled input such as query parameters, URL paths, or form data.

  • Source Code Analysis:

    1. Vulnerable Code (versions < 1.9.1 - Conceptual): Based on the changelog description, it is inferred that in vulnerable versions, the filename was directly concatenated into the Content-Disposition header without proper escaping. A conceptual example of vulnerable code might look like this:

      func (c *Context) FileAttachment(filepath string, filename string) {
    c.Header("Content-Disposition", "attachment; filename=" + filename) // Vulnerable: filename not escaped
    c.File(filepath)
}

    2. Mitigated Code (version >= 1.9.1 - Conceptual): The fix in version 1.9.1 likely involves escaping the filename before embedding it into the Content-Disposition header. This would typically involve quoting the filename and escaping special characters. A conceptual example of mitigated code might be:

      import "net/url"

func (c *Context) FileAttachment(filepath string, filename string) {
    escapedFilename := url.PathEscape(filename) // Example escaping: url.PathEscape (actual method may differ)
    c.Header("Content-Disposition", "attachment; filename=\"" + escapedFilename + "\"") // Mitigated: filename escaped
    c.File(filepath)
}

  • Security Test Case:

    1. Setup (for vulnerable versions < 1.9.1): Create a simple Gin application using a version prior to 1.9.1. Define a /download route that uses c.FileAttachment and takes the filename from the filename query parameter. Ensure a file named test.txt exists in the same directory.

      package main

import (
    "net/http"
    "os"
    "github.com/gin-gonic/gin"
)

func main() {
    r := gin.Default()

    r.GET("/download", func(c *gin.Context) {
        filename := c.Query("filename")
        if filename == "" {
            filename = "default.txt"
        }
        c.FileAttachment("./test.txt", filename)
    })
    os.WriteFile("test.txt", []byte("This is a test file."), 0644) // Create test.txt
    r.Run(":8080")
}

    2. Test Steps: Run the Gin application. Send a request to /download with a malicious filename to inject a Set-Cookie header:

      curl "http://localhost:8080/download?filename=test.txt%22%0D%0ASet-Cookie:%20Vulnerable=true" -v

      Examine the HTTP response headers using curl -v.

    3. Expected Result (Vulnerable Version < 1.9.1): The Set-Cookie: Vulnerable=true header will be present in the response headers, confirming header injection.

    4. Test Mitigation (for versions >= 1.9.1): Upgrade the Gin application to version 1.9.1 or later. Repeat steps 2 and 3.

    5. Expected Result (Mitigated Version >= 1.9.1): The Set-Cookie: Vulnerable=true header will not be present in the response headers. Instead, the Content-Disposition header will contain an escaped version of the malicious filename, indicating successful mitigation. For example: Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="test.txt%2522%250D%250ASet-Cookie:%2520Vulnerable%253Dtrue"

This combined list provides a comprehensive view of the identified vulnerabilities, removing duplicates and providing detailed information for each.