Consolidated Vulnerability List

1. Email Header Injection in Organization Invitations

Description:
1. An attacker initiates the organization invitation process by attempting to add a new user to an organization.
2. In the "email address" field for the new user (which corresponds to the invitee_identifier field in the OrganizationInvitationBase model), the attacker enters a specially crafted email address. This crafted email address includes additional email headers, such as attacker@example.com%0ABcc:attacker2@example.com. The %0A represents a newline character, which is used to inject new headers.
3. The application's invitation system processes this input and uses the invitee_identifier to send an invitation email.
4. Due to insufficient sanitization of the invitee_identifier, the injected headers are included in the email being sent.
5. The email is sent, and the injected Bcc:attacker2@example.com header causes a blind carbon copy of the invitation email to be sent to attacker2@example.com, without the knowledge of the intended recipient or the organization.
Impact:
- Information Disclosure: Attackers can potentially BCC themselves to invitation emails, gaining unauthorized access to invitation details and potentially sensitive organization information being sent in the email body.
- Phishing and Spam: By injecting headers, attackers could manipulate email headers to bypass spam filters or conduct more sophisticated phishing attacks.
- Email Spoofing: In more advanced scenarios, header injection vulnerabilities can sometimes be leveraged for email spoofing.
Vulnerability Rank: High
Currently implemented mitigations:
- No specific mitigations are implemented in the provided code to prevent email header injection for the invitee_identifier field. The code uses EmailMultiAlternatives in src/organizations/backends/defaults.py (and EmailMessage in src/organizations/backends/modeled.py), which can mitigate some basic header injection if used correctly, but it does not automatically sanitize user inputs embedded within template contexts that are then used to construct email headers. The sanitization of the subject line subject = " ".join(subject.split()) is present in src/organizations/backends/defaults.py and src/organizations/backends/modeled.py, but this is not relevant to header injection via invitee_identifier.
Missing mitigations:
- Input Sanitization: The invitee_identifier field should be rigorously sanitized before being used in any email sending process, especially if it's incorporated into email headers (To:, Cc:, Bcc:, Subject:, From:, etc.). Specifically, newline characters and other header-injection-related characters should be encoded or stripped to prevent interpretation as email headers. This sanitization should be implemented before the invitee_identifier is used to construct the email in functions like email_message in src/organizations/backends/defaults.py and src/organizations/backends/modeled.py.
- Secure Email API Usage: Ensure that the email sending API is used in a way that prevents header injection. For instance, using parameters of the email API to set recipients and other headers rather than embedding user-controlled data directly into header strings. Review and refactor email sending functions in src/organizations/backends/defaults.py and src/organizations/backends/modeled.py to ensure secure API usage.
- Security Audit of Email Handling: A thorough security review of all email sending functionalities is needed to identify all potential injection points and apply appropriate sanitization or secure coding practices, especially focusing on how user inputs are handled within email templates used in src/organizations/backends/defaults.py and src/organizations/backends/modeled.py.
Preconditions:
- The application must have a publicly accessible organization invitation feature that utilizes the invitee_identifier in a way that can influence email headers.
- The email sending mechanism must not automatically sanitize or encode header-injection characters in the invitee_identifier.

Source code analysis:

File: src/organizations/backends/defaults.py

from django.core.mail import EmailMessage

class BaseBackend:
    # ...
    def email_message(
        self,
        user,
        subject_template,
        body_template,
        sender=None,
        message_class=EmailMessage, # or EmailMultiAlternatives
        **kwargs,
    ):
        # ...
        subject_template = loader.get_template(subject_template)
        body_template = loader.get_template(body_template)
        subject = subject_template.render(
            kwargs
        ).strip()  # Remove stray newline characters
        body = body_template.render(kwargs)
        return message_class(subject, body, from_email, [user.email], headers=headers)

This code snippet from BaseBackend in src/organizations/backends/defaults.py (and similar email_message in ModelInvitation in src/organizations/backends/modeled.py) shows that email subjects and bodies are rendered from templates. If the invitee_identifier is used in these templates without sanitization, it can lead to header injection. The subject = " ".join(subject.split()) is present, but it only removes extra spaces and newlines within the subject line, not preventing header injection via invitee_identifier if it's used in the subject or body templates.

File: src/organizations/base.py

class AbstractBaseInvitation(models.Model):
    # ...
    invitee_identifier = models.CharField(
        max_length=1000,
        help_text=_(
            "The contact identifier for the invitee, email, phone number,"
            " social media handle, etc."
        ),
    )
    # ...

The invitee_identifier field, defined in AbstractBaseInvitation in src/organizations/base.py, is a CharField and can accept arbitrary strings without sanitization. This field is intended to store the invitee's email or other identifier, and if used directly in email construction, it's a potential injection point.

File: src/organizations/forms.py

class OrganizationUserAddForm(forms.ModelForm):
    email = forms.EmailField(max_length=75)
    # ...
    def save(self, *args, **kwargs):
        # ...
        user = invitation_backend().invite_by_email(
            self.cleaned_data["email"],
            **{
                "domain": get_current_site(self.request),
                "organization": self.organization,
                "sender": self.request.user,
            },
        )
        # ...

The OrganizationUserAddForm in src/organizations/forms.py takes user-provided email and passes it to invitation_backend().invite_by_email. This email is then used as invitee_identifier when creating an invitation in ModelInvitation.invite_by_email in src/organizations/backends/modeled.py, highlighting the path of unsanitized user input to email sending functions.

Security test case:
1. Prerequisites: Ensure you have an account capable of inviting users to an organization in a deployed instance of the application.
2. Login: Log in to the application with an administrative user who has permissions to invite new users to an organization.
3. Navigate to Invite User: Go to the organization's user management page and find the "Invite User" or "Add User" functionality.
4. Craft Malicious Email: In the email address field, enter the following crafted email address: testuser@example.com%0ABcc:attacker_email_address@malicious.com. Replace attacker_email_address@malicious.com with an email address you control to verify the BCC injection.
5. Send Invitation: Submit the invitation form.
6. Check Email Headers:
  - For Attacker Email Address: Check the inbox of attacker_email_address@malicious.com. If you receive a copy of the invitation email, this indicates successful BCC header injection.
  - Alternatively (if direct inbox access is not possible): Inspect the email headers of the invitation email received by testuser@example.com (if possible, depending on the application's setup and your access). Look for injected headers like Bcc: attacker_email_address@malicious.com. This step might be more challenging as direct access to sent email headers might not be readily available in all testing environments.
7. Verify Vulnerability: If the attacker email address receives a BCC of the invitation email, or if injected headers are found in the email headers, the Email Header Injection vulnerability is confirmed.

2. Insecure Django Settings – Hardcoded SECRET_KEY and DEBUG Enabled

Description: Multiple configuration files in the project insecurely configure Django for development rather than production. In particular:
- In /code/manage.py and /code/conftest.py, Django is configured with DEBUG=True and a hardcoded secret key ("ThisIsHorriblyInsecure").
- In /code/example/conf/settings.py, the production settings file also explicitly sets DEBUG=True and uses a hardcoded secret key ("7@m$nx@q%-$la^fy_(-rhxtvoxk118hrprg=q86f"). An attacker can trigger an error (for example, by accessing a URL that causes an exception) and cause Django to serve its detailed debug traceback page. This page exposes sensitive information (such as configuration details, internal paths, environment details, and secret key information), which an attacker can use to forge session cookies, CSRF tokens, or otherwise compromise the application’s authentication and data integrity.
Impact:
- Confidentiality: Detailed debug pages divulge internal configurations and sensitive cryptographic details.
- Integrity: Knowledge of the hardcoded secret keys allows an attacker to forge or tamper with signed data (e.g., session cookies) and impersonate legitimate users.
- Availability: Exposed configuration details can aid attackers in planning further attacks against the infrastructure.
Vulnerability Rank: Critical
Currently implemented mitigations:
- None. The project directly hardcodes insecure default values in configuration files (such as in /code/manage.py, /code/conftest.py, and /code/example/conf/settings.py), without any dynamic or environment-dependent configuration.
Missing mitigations:
- Use environment variables or a secure configuration management system to inject a strong, random SECRET_KEY for production deployments.
- Set DEBUG=False for production environments.
- Ensure that production-oriented settings (such as a properly restricted ALLOWED_HOSTS list) are enforced.
Preconditions:
- The application is deployed to a publicly accessible environment using these default configuration files without overriding the insecure settings.
Source code analysis:
- In /code/manage.py and /code/conftest.py, Django is configured as follows:
```
settings.configure(
    DEBUG=True,
    ...,
    SECRET_KEY="ThisIsHorriblyInsecure",
    ...
)
```
  This forces the use of an insecure secret key and enables debug mode.
- In /code/example/conf/settings.py, the following insecure assignments are made:
```
DEBUG = True
TEMPLATE_DEBUG = DEBUG
...
SECRET_KEY = "7@m$nx@q%-$la^fy_(-rhxtvoxk118hrprg=q86f"
```
  As these settings are loaded in production (unless specifically overridden), any error triggered in the application will render a detailed debug page exposing these values.
Security test case:
1. Deployment Setup:
  - Deploy the Django application using the provided configuration files (ensuring that the hardcoded SECRET_KEY and DEBUG=True remain unchanged).
2. Trigger an Application Error:
  - As an external attacker (without any authentication), request a URL that is known to either not exist or craft parameters that trigger an exception in one of the views.
3. Observe Debug Output:
  - Verify that Django’s debug page is rendered, displaying the full traceback and configuration details, including the insecure SECRET_KEY.
4. Session Tampering Attempt:
  - Using the known SECRET_KEY, attempt to forge a signed cookie or CSRF token to impersonate a user.
5. Document Findings:
  - Record that the application divulges sensitive configuration data and that the use of predictable, hardcoded secret keys poses a total compromise risk if exploited.

3. Missing Clickjacking Protection – X-Frame-Options Header Not Set

Description: The project’s settings file (/code/example/conf/settings.py) does not enable clickjacking protection because the middleware responsible for setting the X-Frame-Options header is commented out. Specifically, in the MIDDLEWARE list the line:
```
# 'django.middleware.clickjacking.XFrameOptionsMiddleware',
```
remains disabled. As a result, an attacker can load the application in an iframe on a malicious website and employ clickjacking techniques to trick authenticated users into performing unintended actions, such as clicking on concealed buttons or links.
Impact:
- User Security: Authenticated users may be tricked into performing actions without their consent (e.g., transferring funds, changing settings, or divulging sensitive data).
- Reputation and Data Integrity: Repeated clickjacking attacks could lead to loss of user trust and compromise sensitive transactions or administrative actions.
Vulnerability Rank: High
Currently implemented mitigations:
- The code contains a commented suggestion to enable the clickjacking middleware but does not actively include it in the middleware stack. There are no other custom protections configured for clickjacking.
Missing mitigations:
- Enable the django.middleware.clickjacking.XFrameOptionsMiddleware in the MIDDLEWARE list for all deployment environments (or at minimum for production).
- Alternatively, configure the web server (e.g., via HTTP headers) to enforce an appropriate X-Frame-Options policy (such as SAMEORIGIN).
Preconditions:
- The application is deployed in an environment where the middleware is not overridden and is accessible to external attackers.
- Users engage with the site through a browser that honors the X-Frame-Options header (or its absence can be exploited).

Source code analysis:

In /code/example/conf/settings.py, observe the middleware configuration:

MIDDLEWARE = [
    "django.middleware.common.CommonMiddleware",
    "django.contrib.sessions.middleware.SessionMiddleware",
    "django.middleware.csrf.CsrfViewMiddleware",
    "django.contrib.auth.middleware.AuthenticationMiddleware",
    "django.contrib.messages.middleware.MessageMiddleware",
    # Uncomment the next line for simple clickjacking protection:
    # 'django.middleware.clickjacking.XFrameOptionsMiddleware',
]

The absence of XFrameOptionsMiddleware means that the response headers do not automatically include X-Frame-Options, leaving pages vulnerable to being embedded in iframes on malicious sites.

Security test case:
1. Deployment Setup:
  - Deploy the Django application using the provided settings (which do not include the clickjacking protection middleware).
2. Construct a Malicious Page:
  - Create an external HTML page on a domain controlled by the attacker that contains an iframe embedding the deployed application’s URL.
3. User Interaction Simulation:
  - Simulate user interaction by accessing the malicious page with a browser.
4. Header Inspection:
  - Using browser developer tools, inspect the HTTP response headers of the embedded application pages to verify that the X-Frame-Options header is missing.
5. Demonstrate Exploit Potential:
  - (Optionally) Design a simple clickjacking demo where a button on the embedded site is overlaid with deceptive UI elements, showcasing how a user could be tricked into clicking an action they did not intend.
6. Document Findings:
  - Record that the application does not provide the necessary clickjacking protection and that enabling the middleware (or an equivalent server configuration) is required to mitigate this vulnerability.

4. Insecure Organization Slug Field - Predictable Slug Generation

Description:
1. An attacker can enumerate organizations by predicting organization slugs.
2. The SlugField in organizations.fields.SlugField and used in organizations.abstract.AbstractOrganization by default is configured to editable=True in migrations (src/organizations/migrations/0003_field_fix_and_editable.py).
3. While the field is set to editable=True in migrations, the AbstractOrganization model definition in src/organizations/abstract.py sets it to editable=True as well.
4. However, the more recent migrations (src/organizations/migrations/0006_alter_organization_slug.py and src/organizations/migrations/0002_model_update.py) and test_abstract/migrations/0004_alter_customorganization_slug.py set editable=False and blank=True. This indicates an attempt to make slugs non-editable after creation.
5. Despite the later migrations setting editable=False, the OrganizationAddForm in src/organizations/forms.py and OrganizationSignup view in src/organizations/views/default.py still allow users to specify the slug during organization creation.
6. If an attacker can predict slugs of organizations, they might be able to discover organization existence or potentially target specific organizations for attacks if other vulnerabilities exist.
7. Although predicting a slug itself doesn't directly compromise data, it weakens the security posture by making organization enumeration easier, which is valuable information for targeted attacks.
Impact:
- Information Disclosure: Attackers can enumerate organizations.
- Increased Attack Surface: Makes targeted attacks easier by allowing attackers to discover organization slugs.
Vulnerability Rank: High
Currently implemented mitigations:
- Later migrations attempt to set editable=False for the slug field, but this is not consistently enforced in the application logic during organization creation.
Missing mitigations:
- Enforce editable=False for the slug field in the model definition to prevent users from directly setting it during creation via forms.
- Generate slugs server-side and make them less predictable (e.g., by including random characters or using UUIDs as base and slugifying).
- Consider rate limiting or adding CAPTCHA to organization creation endpoints if slug predictability becomes a significant concern.
Preconditions:
- Publicly accessible organization signup or creation functionality is enabled.
- The application relies on slug predictability for any security-sensitive operations (though not immediately apparent from the provided code, this could be a hidden assumption).
Source code analysis:
- src/organizations/fields.py: Defines SlugField which inherits from django_extensions.db.fields.AutoSlugField (or similar based on ORGS_SLUGFIELD setting).
- src/organizations/abstract.py: AbstractOrganization model defines slug = SlugField(..., editable=True, ...) initially, but migrations try to change this.
- src/organizations/forms.py:
  - OrganizationAddForm and SignUpForm include 'slug' field, allowing user input.
```
class OrganizationAddForm(forms.ModelForm):
    # ...
    class Meta:
        model = Organization
        exclude = ("users", "is_active")
```
```
class SignUpForm(forms.Form):
    # ...
    slug = forms.SlugField(
        max_length=50,
        help_text=_("The name in all lowercase, suitable for URL identification"),
    )
```
- src/organizations/views/default.py:
  - OrganizationCreate and OrganizationSignup views use these forms, thus exposing the slug field to user input.
  - These views are based on BaseOrganizationCreate and OrganizationSignup from src/organizations/views/base.py.
  - BaseOrganizationCreate uses OrganizationAddForm.
  - OrganizationSignup uses SignUpForm.
- src/organizations/migrations/0003_field_fix_and_editable.py: Sets editable=True for slug.
- src/organizations/migrations/0006_alter_organization_slug.py, src/organizations/migrations/0002_model_update.py, and test_abstract/migrations/0004_alter_customorganization_slug.py: Attempt to set editable=False and blank=True for slug, suggesting a change in design intent that is not fully implemented in forms and views.
Security test case:
1. Access the organization signup or creation page of a deployed instance of the application.
2. Attempt to create a new organization, and in the organization creation form, observe if the "slug" field is present and editable by the user.
3. If the "slug" field is editable, try to create organizations with sequential or predictable slugs (e.g., "test-org-1", "test-org-2", "test-org-3").
4. After creating a few organizations with predictable slugs, attempt to access organization detail pages by guessing slugs (e.g., organizations/<predicted-slug>/).
5. If you can successfully access organization detail pages using predicted slugs without prior knowledge of their existence, then the vulnerability is confirmed.

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

vulnerabilities-workflow-1.md

vulnerabilities-workflow-1.md

Consolidated Vulnerability List

1. Email Header Injection in Organization Invitations

2. Insecure Django Settings – Hardcoded SECRET_KEY and DEBUG Enabled

3. Missing Clickjacking Protection – X-Frame-Options Header Not Set

4. Insecure Organization Slug Field - Predictable Slug Generation

Files

vulnerabilities-workflow-1.md

Latest commit

History

vulnerabilities-workflow-1.md

File metadata and controls

Consolidated Vulnerability List

1. Email Header Injection in Organization Invitations

2. Insecure Django Settings – Hardcoded SECRET_KEY and DEBUG Enabled

3. Missing Clickjacking Protection – X-Frame-Options Header Not Set

4. Insecure Organization Slug Field - Predictable Slug Generation