If you follow our blog, you probably know that we are all about keeping open-source libraries updated. Development teams use these libraries to develop software, so they don't need to start from scratch. Depending on the language in which it is written, most software uses dozens, hundreds or even thousands of open-source libraries. Our post about the newest OWASP Top 10 reported how using vulnerable and outdated components represents a bigger threat nowadays. What follows is that teams need to establish processes to manage their open-source libraries efficiently.
To no one's surprise, developers have found a way to make their work easier by using package managers. We are talking about systems or tools that help them automate processes related to managing third-party open-source libraries. These processes include installation, upgrade and configuration. What is surprising is that recently, and concurrently, eight popular open-source package managers were reported to have vulnerabilities.
The recent discovery was made by researchers at code security solutions provider Sonar. On March 8, they listed the names, versions, CVE IDs and whether there's already a patch. The affected package managers are Composer, Bundler, Bower, Poetry, Yarn, pnpm, pip and Pipenv.
Those vulnerable to command or argument injections
The vulnerability in Composer, for libraries written in the PHP language, is quite critical, with a CVSS v3 score of 9.8. This package manager's vulnerable versions fail to properly neutralize special elements used in a command. So, a threat actor can execute a command of their choosing by injecting malicious new items into an existing command. This is a command injection attack that results in modifying the interpretation away from what the victim originally intended.
The flaw (CVE-2021-41116)
when running Composer on Windows machines.
This command can open a package's source and documentation.
Users need to type the name of the package as the argument,
and the command will open the URL of that package's homepage.
At least it seems.
Because this URL can be corrupted by a threat actor
to execute several other commands.
This includes downloading payloads in the background.
The attacker needs to phish the victim
into using the package for all this to happen,
The researchers recommend
with argument lists and using reliable escaping functions.
This would restrict customization,
reducing the risk of suffering an attack.
Moving on to a somewhat similar kind of attack: Vulnerable versions of Bundler, a package manager for application dependencies in Ruby, and Poetry, a manager for those written in Python, don't properly neutralize the argument delimiters in a command. Poetry fixed this issue in version 1.1.9, but the researchers shared little information about it and the CVE is pending. So, to understand what kind of attack could exploit vulnerabilities in both managers, we'll use the available information regarding Bundler's.
The severity of Bundler's vulnerability (CVE-2021-43809)
with a CVSS v3 score of 7.3.
When victims invoke
that allows interpreting several user-controlled arguments
that could be maliciously crafted.
What attackers could do is create a Gemfile
a file that describes the libraries —gems— used in a program)
declaring a dependency that is located in a Git repository.
But also injecting arguments
that would fool Bundler into executing malware.
attackers need to phish the victim;
in this scenario,
into using the malicious Gemfile.
As it requires considerable user interaction,
exploitation is not as easy
as in the relatively straightforward command injection,
making it less critical.
Most have an untrusted search path weakness
Imagine a person gives you the exact route to where they ask you to go.
Now imagine another scenario:
This person doesn't give you any clue other than the name of the destination,
When the destination could be any of many,
Let's get back to package managers:
If you don't specify the path to a file you want to run in the command,
the operating system will have to look for it only by its name.
Supposedly safe locations are stored in a variable called
Most operating systems will look for the file there,
but Windows will look first at the current working directory
What is considered an untrusted search path
weakness is present in Yarn,
The vulnerability in versions up to 1.22.13
allows fetching a file that is outside
If the working directory has an untrusted file
with the same name referenced in the command,
that means trouble.
The researchers mention the possibility
of a victim trying to fetch a library from a Git repository
by typing only "git" without its path,
and there being a malicious git.exe file in the working directory.
This would cause Yarn to fetch the malicious file.
pip and Pipenv decided not to fix this issue.
because "there are several other ways
an attacker could gain code execution in the same attack scenario."
Composer didn't have this scenario in their threat model,
so they chose not to address it.
But the rest did address it.
now uses a command called
and allows the search
to be done only in locations defined in
Be wary of your library choices
What's most interesting about the vulnerabilities we addressed in this post is that developers have to be tricked into fetching malicious libraries. Attackers have to rely on social engineering or sneak malicious files into a trusted codebase. This could sound like a relief, but, in earnest, this whole situation highlights the importance of developers being aware of the libraries they're using and how they behave. It also wouldn't hurt to learn some indicators to have in mind when choosing open-source. All the while, let's remember what's key: Upgrade! Upgrade! Upgrade!
we help you ensure
that the libraries you use in your software have no vulnerabilities.
Recommended blog posts
You might be interested in the following related posts.
Watch out for keylogging/keyloggers
There's not an only way but here's a good one
Benefits and risks of these increasingly used programs
A hacker's view of the performance of Researcher CNAs
Why so many are switching to Rust
Description and critique of CEH certifications
An OffSec Experienced Pentester review
Or what makes the ethical hacker