rustsec-2024-0008
Vulnerability from osv_rustsec
Summary
Insufficient validation of outbound header values may lead to request splitting or response splitting attacks in scenarios where attackers have sufficient control over outbound headers.
Details
Outbound trillium_http::HeaderValue and trillium_http::HeaderName can be constructed infallibly and were not checked for illegal bytes when sending requests. Thus, if an attacker has sufficient control over header values (or names) in a request that they could inject \r\n sequences, they could get the client and server out of sync, and then pivot to gain control over other parts of requests or responses. (i.e. exfiltrating data from other requests, SSRF, etc.)
Patches
trillium-client >= 0.5.4:
- If any header name or header value is invalid in the client request headers, awaiting the client Conn returns an
Error::MalformedHeaderprior to any network access.
Workarounds
trillium client applications should sanitize or validate untrusted input that is included in header values and header names. Carriage return, newline, and null characters are not allowed.
Impact
This only affects use cases where attackers have control of outbound headers, and can insert "\r\n" sequences. Specifically, if untrusted and unvalidated input is inserted into header names or values.
Credit
Discovered and reported by @divergentdave
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"categories": [],
"cvss": null,
"informational": null
},
"ecosystem_specific": {
"affected_functions": null,
"affects": {
"arch": [],
"functions": [],
"os": []
}
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "trillium-client",
"purl": "pkg:cargo/trillium-client"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.0.0-0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.5.4"
}
],
"type": "SEMVER"
}
],
"versions": []
}
],
"aliases": [
"GHSA-9f9p-cp3c-72jf",
"CVE-2024-23644"
],
"database_specific": {
"license": "CC0-1.0"
},
"details": "### Summary\nInsufficient validation of outbound header values may lead to request splitting or response splitting attacks in scenarios where attackers have sufficient control over outbound headers.\n\n### Details\nOutbound `trillium_http::HeaderValue` and `trillium_http::HeaderName` can be constructed infallibly and were not checked for illegal bytes when sending requests. Thus, if an attacker has sufficient control over header values (or names) in a request that they could inject `\\r\\n` sequences, they could get the client and server out of sync, and then pivot to gain control over other parts of requests or responses. (i.e. exfiltrating data from other requests, SSRF, etc.)\n\n### Patches\n\n#### trillium-client \u003e= 0.5.4:\n* If any header name or header value is invalid in the client request headers, awaiting the client Conn returns an `Error::MalformedHeader` prior to any network access.\n\n### Workarounds\n\ntrillium client applications should sanitize or validate untrusted input that is included in header values and header names. Carriage return, newline, and null characters are not allowed.\n\n### Impact\n\nThis only affects use cases where attackers have control of outbound headers, and can insert \"\\r\\n\" sequences. Specifically, if untrusted and unvalidated input is inserted into header names or values.\n\n### Credit\n\nDiscovered and reported by [@divergentdave](https://github.com/divergentdave)",
"id": "RUSTSEC-2024-0008",
"modified": "2024-01-24T17:00:49Z",
"published": "2024-01-23T12:00:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://crates.io/crates/trillium-client"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2024-0008.html"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/trillium-rs/trillium/security/advisories/GHSA-9f9p-cp3c-72jf"
}
],
"related": [],
"severity": [],
"summary": "Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers (\u0027HTTP Request/Response Splitting\u0027)"
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
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.