GSD-2020-26877

Vulnerability from gsd - Updated: 2023-12-13 01:22
Details
ApiFest OAuth 2.0 Server 0.3.1 does not validate the redirect URI in accordance with RFC 6749 and is susceptible to an open redirector attack. Specifically, it directly sends an authorization code to the redirect URI submitted with the authorization request, without checking whether the redirect URI is registered by the client who initiated the request. This allows an attacker to craft a request with a manipulated redirect URI (redirect_uri parameter), which is under the attacker's control, and consequently obtain the leaked authorization code when the server redirects the client to the manipulated redirect URI with an authorization code. NOTE: this is similar to CVE-2019-3778.
Aliases
Aliases
CVE-2020-26877
To clipboard 

{
  "GSD": {
    "alias": "CVE-2020-26877",
    "description": "ApiFest OAuth 2.0 Server 0.3.1 does not validate the redirect URI in accordance with RFC 6749 and is susceptible to an open redirector attack. Specifically, it directly sends an authorization code to the redirect URI submitted with the authorization request, without checking whether the redirect URI is registered by the client who initiated the request. This allows an attacker to craft a request with a manipulated redirect URI (redirect_uri parameter), which is under the attacker\u0027s control, and consequently obtain the leaked authorization code when the server redirects the client to the manipulated redirect URI with an authorization code. NOTE: this is similar to CVE-2019-3778.",
    "id": "GSD-2020-26877"
  },
  "gsd": {
    "metadata": {
      "exploitCode": "unknown",
      "remediation": "unknown",
      "reportConfidence": "confirmed",
      "type": "vulnerability"
    },
    "osvSchema": {
      "aliases": [
        "CVE-2020-26877"
      ],
      "details": "ApiFest OAuth 2.0 Server 0.3.1 does not validate the redirect URI in accordance with RFC 6749 and is susceptible to an open redirector attack. Specifically, it directly sends an authorization code to the redirect URI submitted with the authorization request, without checking whether the redirect URI is registered by the client who initiated the request. This allows an attacker to craft a request with a manipulated redirect URI (redirect_uri parameter), which is under the attacker\u0027s control, and consequently obtain the leaked authorization code when the server redirects the client to the manipulated redirect URI with an authorization code. NOTE: this is similar to CVE-2019-3778.",
      "id": "GSD-2020-26877",
      "modified": "2023-12-13T01:22:09.094096Z",
      "schema_version": "1.4.0"
    }
  },
  "namespaces": {
    "cve.org": {
      "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
        "ID": "CVE-2020-26877",
        "STATE": "PUBLIC"
      },
      "affects": {
        "vendor": {
          "vendor_data": [
            {
              "product": {
                "product_data": [
                  {
                    "product_name": "n/a",
                    "version": {
                      "version_data": [
                        {
                          "version_value": "n/a"
                        }
                      ]
                    }
                  }
                ]
              },
              "vendor_name": "n/a"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "data_format": "MITRE",
      "data_type": "CVE",
      "data_version": "4.0",
      "description": {
        "description_data": [
          {
            "lang": "eng",
            "value": "ApiFest OAuth 2.0 Server 0.3.1 does not validate the redirect URI in accordance with RFC 6749 and is susceptible to an open redirector attack. Specifically, it directly sends an authorization code to the redirect URI submitted with the authorization request, without checking whether the redirect URI is registered by the client who initiated the request. This allows an attacker to craft a request with a manipulated redirect URI (redirect_uri parameter), which is under the attacker\u0027s control, and consequently obtain the leaked authorization code when the server redirects the client to the manipulated redirect URI with an authorization code. NOTE: this is similar to CVE-2019-3778."
          }
        ]
      },
      "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "n/a"
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "references": {
        "reference_data": [
          {
            "name": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-3.1.2.3",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-3.1.2.3"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/apifest/apifest-oauth20",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://github.com/apifest/apifest-oauth20"
          },
          {
            "name": "http://www.apifest.org/index.html",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "http://www.apifest.org/index.html"
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    "nvd.nist.gov": {
      "configurations": {
        "CVE_data_version": "4.0",
        "nodes": [
          {
            "children": [],
            "cpe_match": [
              {
                "cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:apifest:oauth_2.0_server:0.3.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                "cpe_name": [],
                "vulnerable": true
              }
            ],
            "operator": "OR"
          }
        ]
      },
      "cve": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
          "ID": "CVE-2020-26877"
        },
        "data_format": "MITRE",
        "data_type": "CVE",
        "data_version": "4.0",
        "description": {
          "description_data": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "ApiFest OAuth 2.0 Server 0.3.1 does not validate the redirect URI in accordance with RFC 6749 and is susceptible to an open redirector attack. Specifically, it directly sends an authorization code to the redirect URI submitted with the authorization request, without checking whether the redirect URI is registered by the client who initiated the request. This allows an attacker to craft a request with a manipulated redirect URI (redirect_uri parameter), which is under the attacker\u0027s control, and consequently obtain the leaked authorization code when the server redirects the client to the manipulated redirect URI with an authorization code. NOTE: this is similar to CVE-2019-3778."
            }
          ]
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "en",
                  "value": "CWE-601"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "http://www.apifest.org/index.html",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Vendor Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "http://www.apifest.org/index.html"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/apifest/apifest-oauth20",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://github.com/apifest/apifest-oauth20"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-3.1.2.3",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-3.1.2.3"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "impact": {
        "baseMetricV2": {
          "acInsufInfo": false,
          "cvssV2": {
            "accessComplexity": "MEDIUM",
            "accessVector": "NETWORK",
            "authentication": "NONE",
            "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "baseScore": 5.8,
            "confidentialityImpact": "PARTIAL",
            "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL",
            "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:N",
            "version": "2.0"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 8.6,
          "impactScore": 4.9,
          "obtainAllPrivilege": false,
          "obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
          "obtainUserPrivilege": false,
          "severity": "MEDIUM",
          "userInteractionRequired": true
        },
        "baseMetricV3": {
          "cvssV3": {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "baseScore": 6.1,
            "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
            "confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
            "integrityImpact": "LOW",
            "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
            "scope": "CHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "REQUIRED",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
            "version": "3.1"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 2.8,
          "impactScore": 2.7
        }
      },
      "lastModifiedDate": "2022-07-08T16:21Z",
      "publishedDate": "2022-06-29T14:15Z"
    }
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

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.