pysec-2021-123
Vulnerability from pysec
The Python "Flask-Security-Too" package is used for adding security features to your Flask application. It is an is an independently maintained version of Flask-Security based on the 3.0.0 version of Flask-Security. All versions of Flask-Security-Too allow redirects after many successful views (e.g. /login) by honoring the ?next query param. There is code in FS to validate that the url specified in the next parameter is either relative OR has the same netloc (network location) as the requesting URL. This check utilizes Pythons urlsplit library. However many browsers are very lenient on the kind of URL they accept and 'fill in the blanks' when presented with a possibly incomplete URL. As a concrete example - setting http://login?next=\\github.com will pass FS's relative URL check however many browsers will gladly convert this to http://github.com. Thus an attacker could send such a link to an unwitting user, using a legitimate site and have it redirect to whatever site they want. This is considered a low severity due to the fact that if Werkzeug is used (which is very common with Flask applications) as the WSGI layer, it by default ALWAYS ensures that the Location header is absolute - thus making this attack vector mute. It is possible for application writers to modify this default behavior by setting the autocorrect_location_header=False.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "flask-security-too",
"purl": "pkg:pypi/flask-security-too"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"3.0.1",
"3.0.1rc1",
"3.0.1rc2",
"3.0.1rc3",
"3.0.2",
"3.1.0rc1",
"3.2.0",
"3.2.0rc1",
"3.2.0rc3",
"3.2.0rc4",
"3.3.0",
"3.3.0rc1",
"3.3.0rc2",
"3.3.0rc3",
"3.3.1",
"3.3.2",
"3.3.3",
"3.4.0",
"3.4.1",
"3.4.2",
"3.4.3",
"3.4.4",
"3.4.5",
"4.0.0",
"4.0.0rc1",
"4.0.0rc2",
"4.0.1"
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-32618",
"GHSA-6qmf-fj6m-686c"
],
"details": "The Python \"Flask-Security-Too\" package is used for adding security features to your Flask application. It is an is an independently maintained version of Flask-Security based on the 3.0.0 version of Flask-Security. All versions of Flask-Security-Too allow redirects after many successful views (e.g. /login) by honoring the ?next query param. There is code in FS to validate that the url specified in the next parameter is either relative OR has the same netloc (network location) as the requesting URL. This check utilizes Pythons urlsplit library. However many browsers are very lenient on the kind of URL they accept and \u0027fill in the blanks\u0027 when presented with a possibly incomplete URL. As a concrete example - setting http://login?next=\\\\\\github.com will pass FS\u0027s relative URL check however many browsers will gladly convert this to http://github.com. Thus an attacker could send such a link to an unwitting user, using a legitimate site and have it redirect to whatever site they want. This is considered a low severity due to the fact that if Werkzeug is used (which is very common with Flask applications) as the WSGI layer, it by default ALWAYS ensures that the Location header is absolute - thus making this attack vector mute. It is possible for application writers to modify this default behavior by setting the `autocorrect_location_header=False`.",
"id": "PYSEC-2021-123",
"modified": "2021-08-25T04:30:09.653075Z",
"published": "2021-05-17T18:15:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "REPORT",
"url": "https://github.com/Flask-Middleware/flask-security/issues/486"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/Flask-Middleware/flask-security/security/advisories/GHSA-6qmf-fj6m-686c"
}
]
}
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.
- 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.