pysec-2019-136
Vulnerability from pysec
Published
2019-12-20 23:15
Modified
2020-02-25 17:15
Details

Waitress through version 1.3.1 implemented a "MAY" part of the RFC7230 which states: "Although the line terminator for the start-line and header fields is the sequence CRLF, a recipient MAY recognize a single LF as a line terminator and ignore any preceding CR." Unfortunately if a front-end server does not parse header fields with an LF the same way as it does those with a CRLF it can lead to the front-end and the back-end server parsing the same HTTP message in two different ways. This can lead to a potential for HTTP request smuggling/splitting whereby Waitress may see two requests while the front-end server only sees a single HTTP message. This issue is fixed in Waitress 1.4.0.

Impacted products
Name purl
waitress pkg:pypi/waitress
Aliases


To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "waitress",
        "purl": "pkg:pypi/waitress"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "8eba394ad75deaf9e5cd15b78a3d16b12e6b0eba"
            }
          ],
          "repo": "https://github.com/Pylons/waitress",
          "type": "GIT"
        },
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.4.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ],
      "versions": [
        "0.1",
        "0.2",
        "0.3",
        "0.4",
        "0.5",
        "0.6",
        "0.6.1",
        "0.7",
        "0.8",
        "0.8.1",
        "0.8.2",
        "0.8.3",
        "0.8.4",
        "0.8.5",
        "0.8.6",
        "0.8.7",
        "0.8.8",
        "0.8.9",
        "0.8.10",
        "0.8.11b0",
        "0.9.0b0",
        "0.9.0b1",
        "0.9.0",
        "1.0a1",
        "1.0a2",
        "1.0.0",
        "1.0.1",
        "1.0.2",
        "1.1.0",
        "1.2.0b1",
        "1.2.0b2",
        "1.2.0b3",
        "1.2.0",
        "1.2.1",
        "1.3.0b0",
        "1.3.0",
        "1.3.1"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2019-16785",
    "GHSA-pg36-wpm5-g57p"
  ],
  "details": "Waitress through version 1.3.1 implemented a \"MAY\" part of the RFC7230 which states: \"Although the line terminator for the start-line and header fields is the sequence CRLF, a recipient MAY recognize a single LF as a line terminator and ignore any preceding CR.\" Unfortunately if a front-end server does not parse header fields with an LF the same way as it does those with a CRLF it can lead to the front-end and the back-end server parsing the same HTTP message in two different ways. This can lead to a potential for HTTP request smuggling/splitting whereby Waitress may see two requests while the front-end server only sees a single HTTP message. This issue is fixed in Waitress 1.4.0.",
  "id": "PYSEC-2019-136",
  "modified": "2020-02-25T17:15:00Z",
  "published": "2019-12-20T23:15:00Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://github.com/Pylons/waitress/security/advisories/GHSA-pg36-wpm5-g57p"
    },
    {
      "type": "FIX",
      "url": "https://github.com/Pylons/waitress/commit/8eba394ad75deaf9e5cd15b78a3d16b12e6b0eba"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://docs.pylonsproject.org/projects/waitress/en/latest/#security-fixes"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/GVDHR2DNKCNQ7YQXISJ45NT4IQDX3LJ7/"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LYEOTGWJZVKPRXX2HBNVIYWCX73QYPM5/"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2020:0720"
    }
  ]
}


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 seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.