Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
212 lines (202 loc) · 21 KB

vulnerabilities-workflow-1.md

File metadata and controls

212 lines (202 loc) · 21 KB

Here is the combined list of vulnerabilities from the provided reports, formatted as markdown:

Combined Vulnerability Report for Zinnia Blog Application

  • Vulnerability 1: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in Pingback

    • Description:
      1. An attacker crafts a blog entry or an XML-RPC pingback request and includes a "source" URL parameter pointing to an internal resource (e.g., http://localhost:22, http://internal.example.com, http://127.0.0.1/admin).
      2. For blog entries, after the entry is saved and published, the Zinnia application's pingback functionality (zinnia.ping.ExternalUrlsPinger) is triggered. For XML-RPC pingbacks, the pingback_ping function is directly invoked via the XML-RPC endpoint.
      3. The ExternalUrlsPinger.find_pingback_urls function (for blog entries) or the pingback_ping function (for XML-RPC) parses the provided URL or HTML content to extract URLs.
      4. For each extracted or provided URL, the application attempts to open and fetch content using urllib.request.urlopen to discover pingback server URLs or handle pingback verification.
      5. Due to the lack of validation of the target URL, if an attacker includes a URL pointing to an internal service, the Zinnia server will initiate an HTTP request to this internal resource.
      6. This SSRF vulnerability allows an attacker to probe internal network resources, potentially gaining access to sensitive information or triggering unintended actions within the internal network. In the context of XML-RPC pingbacks, the "source" URL from the XML-RPC request is directly used, exacerbating the risk.
    • Impact:
      • Information Disclosure: Attackers can scan and identify open ports and services on the internal network, which are not intended to be publicly accessible.
      • Lateral Movement: In certain scenarios, if the internal services are vulnerable or misconfigured, SSRF can be leveraged to gain unauthorized access to these internal systems, facilitating further attacks and potentially escalating privileges.
      • Full Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF): Successful exploitation may lead to a full SSRF attack, allowing probing of internal network resources and interaction with sensitive internal systems.
    • Vulnerability Rank: Critical
    • Currently implemented mitigations:
      • None. The code uses Python’s standard URL fetching (urlopen) without any input sanitization or host-based restrictions in production for both blog entry pingbacks and XML-RPC pingbacks.
      • Test suites override URL calls (stubbing out urlopen during tests), but this does not apply in production code.
    • Missing mitigations:
      • Implement robust URL validation in zinnia.ping.ExternalUrlsPinger.find_pingback_urls and zinnia/xmlrpc/pingback.py to prevent requests to internal IPs, private networks, and disallowed hosts.
      • Apply input validation and filtering on the "source" URL in XML-RPC pingbacks to accept only permitted protocols (e.g., "http" and "https") and reject URLs resolving to private, loopback, or internal IP ranges.
      • Implement an allowlist of trusted domains or IP ranges before triggering URL fetching for both pingback mechanisms.
      • Consider using a denylist of disallowed IP ranges and hostnames as a less secure alternative to an allowlist.
      • Properly configure network egress restrictions and implement strict timeouts, error handling, and rate-limiting for outbound requests.
    • Preconditions:
      • The Zinnia blog application must have the pingback feature enabled for blog entries.
      • The XML-RPC pingback endpoint must be publicly accessible.
      • An attacker must be able to create and publish blog entries or send XML-RPC requests. User authentication for creating entries is assumed but depends on the Zinnia application's configuration. For XML-RPC, the endpoint is generally public.
      • At least one published blog entry (the “target” URL for XML-RPC pingbacks) must exist to trigger the pingback process.
      • The server’s network policy must allow outbound HTTP requests to internal or sensitive endpoints.
    • Source code analysis:
      • File: /code/zinnia/ping.py
      • Function: ExternalUrlsPinger.find_pingback_urls(self, urls)
      def find_pingback_urls(self, urls):
    """
    Find the pingback URL for each URLs.
    """
    pingback_urls = {}

    for url in urls: # [POINT 1] URLs are extracted from the entry content, directly influenced by the attacker.
        try:
            page = urlopen(url) # [POINT 2] urlopen is used to fetch the URL without any validation. SSRF occurs here.
            headers = page.info()

            server_url = headers.get('X-Pingback')

            if not server_url:
                content_type = headers.get('Content-Type', '').split(
                    ';')[0].strip().lower()
                if content_type in ['text/html', 'application/xhtml+xml']:
                    server_url = self.find_pingback_href(
                        page.read(5 * 1024))

            if server_url:
                server_url_splitted = urlsplit(server_url)
                if not server_url_splitted.netloc:
                    url_splitted = urlsplit(url)
                    server_url = '%s://%s%s' % (url_splitted.scheme,
                                                url_splitted.netloc,
                                                server_url)
                pingback_urls[url] = server_url # [POINT 3] The discovered pingback URL is stored for later use in pingback requests.
        except IOError:
            pass
    return pingback_urls
      • File: zinnia/xmlrpc/pingback.py
      • Function: pingback_ping(source, target)
      def pingback_ping(source, target):
    """
    pingback.ping handler
    """
    # ... (some checks and logic) ...

    try:
        page = urlopen(source) # [POINT 1] urlopen is called directly with the 'source' parameter from XML-RPC request. SSRF occurs here.
        # ... (rest of the pingback logic) ...
    except Exception:
        # ... (error handling) ...
        raise Fault(0, 'The source URI does not exist.')
    # ... (rest of the function) ...
      • In both code snippets, the vulnerability lies in the urlopen(url) or urlopen(source) call ([POINT 2] in ping.py, [POINT 1] in pingback.py). The url variable in ping.py is derived from user-supplied content, and the source parameter in pingback.py is directly from the XML-RPC request, both without any validation. This allows the attacker to specify an internal URL, leading to a Server-Side Request Forgery. The insecure usage is further highlighted by the absence of host-based filtering or protocol restrictions in the production code and the test suites that stub out network calls.
    • Security test case:
      1. Setup (for Blog Entry Pingback):
        • Log in to the Zinnia application with an account that has permission to create blog entries.
      2. Setup (for XML-RPC Pingback):
        • Deploy the application such that the XML-RPC pingback endpoint (e.g. /xmlrpc/) is publicly accessible.
        • Ensure that at least one published entry exists.
      3. Request Crafting (for Blog Entry Pingback):
        • Create a new blog entry.
        • In the content of the blog entry, insert the following HTML code: <a href="http://127.0.0.1:8000/admin/">Internal Admin Panel</a>. Replace http://127.0.0.1:8000/admin/ with an actual internal service URL if known, or a non-routable IP address to observe connection attempts (e.g., http://192.168.1.1/). Alternatively, use a service like requestbin.com to observe external requests.
      4. Request Crafting (for XML-RPC Pingback):
        • Using a tool like curl or Postman, construct an XML-RPC pingback request where the "source" URL is set to an internal address (e.g. http://127.0.0.1/admin) and the "target" URL matches that of a published entry.
      5. Execution (for Blog Entry Pingback):
        • Publish the blog entry.
      6. Execution (for XML-RPC Pingback):
        • Send the crafted XML-RPC pingback request to the /xmlrpc/ endpoint.
      7. Observation:
        • Monitor the network traffic from the Zinnia application server. Observe if there are any outbound HTTP requests originating from the server to the specified internal IP address or hostname (127.0.0.1:8000 or 127.0.0.1 in these examples). If using requestbin.com, check if a request is received. For XML-RPC, examine the XML-RPC response to determine if the request was processed.
      8. Result:
        • If the Zinnia server attempts to access the internal resource, it confirms the SSRF vulnerability. The response from the internal service (if any) might also be visible in network logs or application logs, further confirming the vulnerability and potential information exposure. For XML-RPC, if the server makes an outbound request to the internal resource as specified by the “source” URL (or a response indicates that the request went through), the SSRF vulnerability is confirmed. After implementing appropriate input validations and egress restrictions, repeating the test should no longer result in an outbound request.

  • Vulnerability 2: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in Markup Processing

    • Description:
      1. An attacker authors a blog entry using a markup language (like Markdown, Textile, or reStructuredText) that includes malicious JavaScript code embedded within the markup. For example, in Markdown, an attacker might use <img src="x" onerror="alert('XSS')">, <script>alert('XSS')</script>, or [Click me](javascript:alert('XSS')) XSS payloads.
      2. When a user requests to view this blog entry, the Zinnia application processes the entry's content using the markup processor specified in the application's settings (zinnia.settings.MARKUP_LANGUAGE). Markdown is the default setting.
      3. If the configured markup processor or its settings are not properly configured to sanitize and escape HTML entities in the processed output, the malicious JavaScript code injected by the attacker will be rendered directly in the user's browser.
      4. This results in an XSS vulnerability, where the attacker's JavaScript code executes within the context of the user's session when they view the blog post.
    • Impact:
      • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS): Successful exploitation allows an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the browsers of users viewing the compromised blog entry. This can lead to a range of attacks, including:
        • Account Takeover: If an administrator views the malicious post, the attacker could potentially steal their session cookies and gain administrative access to the Zinnia blog.
        • Session hijacking: Stealing user session cookies to gain unauthorized access to user accounts.
        • Data Theft: An attacker could steal sensitive information from users who view the compromised blog post.
        • Defacement: Altering the visual appearance of the webpage as seen by the user.
        • Redirection: Redirecting users to attacker-controlled malicious websites.
        • Information theft: Accessing sensitive information from the user's browser, such as keystrokes or form data.
    • Vulnerability Rank: High
    • Currently implemented mitigations:
      • Django's template auto-escaping is generally enabled and provides a base level of protection for standard Django templates. However, this auto-escaping does not apply to the output of the Markdown, Textile, or reStructuredText processors, which directly render HTML into the templates.
      • The project uses django.utils.html.linebreaks for HTML formatting when MARKUP_LANGUAGE is not set to 'markdown', 'textile', or 'restructuredtext', which escapes HTML, but this is not used for Markdown or other markup languages.
      • The project uses django.utils.html.strip_tags in zinnia/comparison.py to remove HTML tags, but this is only used in the content comparison feature, not during general content rendering for blog posts.
      • There is no explicit HTML sanitization applied to user-provided Markdown content before rendering it in blog posts by default.
    • Missing mitigations:
      • Implement HTML sanitization for Markdown, Textile, and ReStructuredText rendered content. Use a library like Bleach or similar to sanitize the HTML output generated by the markdown rendering process before displaying it to users. This would remove or neutralize any potentially malicious HTML tags or JavaScript.
      • Ensure that the chosen markup processor (Markdown, Textile, reStructuredText) is correctly configured with settings that enforce strict HTML sanitization and output escaping to prevent XSS. For Markdown, this could involve configuring extensions like markdown.extensions.sanitize.
      • Review and harden the MARKDOWN_EXTENSIONS and RESTRUCTUREDTEXT_SETTINGS in zinnia.settings.py. Disable any extensions that are not essential and could potentially introduce XSS vulnerabilities due to unsafe HTML generation.
      • Implement a Content Security Policy (CSP) to further mitigate the impact of XSS by controlling the sources from which the browser is allowed to load resources.
    • Preconditions:
      • The Zinnia application must be configured to use a markup language other than 'html' for blog entry content (e.g., 'markdown', 'textile', 'restructuredtext' set in zinnia.settings.MARKUP_LANGUAGE). The default setting is 'markdown'.
      • An attacker must be able to create and publish blog entries. User authentication for creating entries is assumed but depends on the Zinnia application's configuration.
    • Source code analysis:
      • File: /code/zinnia/markups.py
      • Function: markdown(value, extensions=MARKDOWN_EXTENSIONS) (and similar for textile and restructuredtext)
      def markdown(value, extensions=MARKDOWN_EXTENSIONS):
    """
    Markdown processing with optionally using various extensions
    that python-markdown supports.
    ...
    """
    try:
        import markdown
    except ImportError:
        ...
        return value

    return markdown.markdown(force_str(value), extensions=extensions) # [POINT 1] Markdown content is processed here.
      • The markdown.markdown(force_str(value), extensions=extensions) call at [POINT 1] is where the Markdown content is processed and converted to HTML. If the extensions configured via MARKDOWN_EXTENSIONS (in zinnia.settings.py) include extensions that are not XSS-safe, or if python-markdown itself has parsing vulnerabilities, it could lead to the injection of unsanitized HTML, resulting in XSS. The same applies to textile and restructuredtext processors. The output of these functions is directly rendered into the template without further sanitization.
    • Security test case:
      1. Modify the Zinnia settings to ensure MARKUP_LANGUAGE is set to 'markdown', which is the default.
      2. Log in to the Zinnia application with an account that can create blog entries.
      3. Create a new blog entry.
      4. In the content of the blog entry, insert a known XSS payload in Markdown format. For example: 
        **Test XSS** <img src="x" onerror="alert('XSS Vulnerability')">
        or using a script tag: 
        <script>alert('XSS Vulnerability Detected: Script Tag')</script>
        or using a link: 
        [Click me](javascript:alert('XSS Vulnerability Detected: Link with Javascript'))
      5. Save and publish the blog entry.
      6. Access the published blog entry as a regular user (or while logged out).
      7. Observe if an alert box pops up in your browser, or if the JavaScript code executes. If the JavaScript executes, it confirms the XSS vulnerability in Markdown processing.
      8. Repeat the test by changing MARKUP_LANGUAGE to 'textile' and 'restructuredtext' and adjusting the XSS payloads to be appropriate for each markup language to test for XSS vulnerabilities across all supported markup formats. For Textile: "<script>alert('XSS')</script>":http://example.com and for reStructuredText .. raw:: html\n\n <script>alert("XSS")</script>.

  • Vulnerability 3: Insecure Debug Mode Enabled

    • Description:
      1. The application’s configuration in demo/settings.py sets DEBUG = True.
      2. When deployed with this setting enabled in a publicly accessible instance, Django will display detailed error pages when exceptions occur.
      3. An attacker can send a crafted HTTP request (for example, a request to a non-existent URL or one that deliberately triggers an exception).
      4. With DEBUG = True, Django’s default behavior is to display a detailed error page containing sensitive internal configuration details and stack traces. This includes the SECRET_KEY, database settings, installed apps, and environment variables.
      5. The attacker collects this information to better understand the application’s internals and potentially leverage it for further attacks (for example, by using the leaked SECRET_KEY or other credentials to compromise session security).
    • Impact:
      • Exposure of sensitive internal configuration and code details can lead to a variety of downstream attacks. Leaked information may allow an attacker to gain insights into the application’s structure, authentication mechanisms, and operational environment—facilitating more targeted and effective exploits against the system.
      • Critical information leakage includes the SECRET_KEY, which can compromise session security, allow for CSRF bypass, and potentially lead to remote code execution if other vulnerabilities are present.
    • Vulnerability Rank: Critical
    • Currently implemented mitigations:
      • There are no mitigations present in the project code; the setting is hard-coded in demo/settings.py as DEBUG = True with no environment-specific override.
    • Missing mitigations:
      • Set DEBUG = False in production environments. This is the most critical mitigation.
      • Use separate configuration files for development and production—with production settings that disable debug mode and protect sensitive information.
      • Implement secure error handling such that even if an exception occurs, minimal information is exposed to end users. Ensure generic error pages are displayed in production.
      • Remove or securely manage sensitive information (like SECRET_KEY, database credentials) from being directly exposed in error pages, even in debug mode, although disabling debug mode in production is the primary solution.
    • Preconditions:
      • The application is deployed using the demo configuration from demo/settings.py in a publicly accessible environment.
      • The DEBUG setting remains enabled (i.e. set to True).
    • Source code analysis:
      • File: demo/settings.py
      • The file demo/settings.py contains the line DEBUG = True.
      • There is no logic in the settings file to conditionally disable debug mode based on the environment or host.
      • Consequently, if any unhandled exception occurs, Django will render a full debug page exposing critical internal information. Django's core behavior when DEBUG = True is to display detailed error pages.
    • Security test case:
      1. Setup:
        • Deploy the application using the demo configuration from demo/settings.py with DEBUG left enabled on a publicly accessible server.
      2. Request Crafting:
        • Send an HTTP request that is guaranteed to trigger an unhandled exception (for example, requesting a URL that does not exist, such as /trigger-error).
      3. Execution:
        • Observe the HTTP response produced by Django.
      4. Observation:
        • Check that the response displays a detailed error page containing a full stack trace along with sensitive information (for example, the value of SECRET_KEY, database connection settings, installed apps, and other environment variables). Examine the HTML source of the error page to find sensitive data.
      5. Result:
        • If a detailed debug error page is displayed as described, then the vulnerability is confirmed. The presence of SECRET_KEY and database credentials in the error page clearly demonstrates the severity.
        • Once the debug mode is disabled (i.e. DEBUG = False), repeating the test should yield a generic error page with no sensitive details, indicating successful mitigation.