Skip to content

Invenio-App vulnerable to host header injection attack

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 15, 2019 in inveniosoftware/invenio-app • Updated Sep 23, 2024

Package

pip invenio-app (pip)

Affected versions

< 1.0.6
= 1.1.0

Patched versions

1.0.6
1.1.1

Description

APP_ALLOWED_HOSTS not always preventing host header injection

Impact

A possible host header injection attack have been identified in Invenio-App. For an attack to be possible, all conditions below must be met:

  1. Your webserver must have been configured to route all requests to your application.
  2. You must have relied on APP_ALLOWED_HOSTS configuration variable to whitelist allowed host headers.
  3. Flask's request.host must not have been evaluated during request handling.

An example of a view which does not evalute request.host is a simple view using just url_for to generate an external URL (similar is possible when rendering just a Jinja template):

@app.route('/')
def index():
    return url_for('index_url', _external=True)

This happens, because Werkzeug's trusted host feature, which APP_ALLOWED_HOSTS rely on, does not check the the list of trusted hosts in it's routing system that url_for is relying on.

Patches

Invenio-App v1.0.6 and v1.1.1 fully fix the issue.

Note, we strongly recommend (see Securing your instance) that you never route requests to your application with a wrong host header. The APP_ALLOWED_HOSTS configuration variable exists as an extra protective measure because it is easy to misconfigure your web server to allow requests with any host header.

Workaround 1 - Configure your webserver

You should ensure that you never route requests with a wrong host header to your application. The workaround depends on which web server you are using to proxy requests to your application. In general it involves ensuring that the web server has two virtual hosts defined:

  1. Default virtual host: a dummy default virtual host that by default is used unless the webserver can match the host header to another virtual host (i.e. a catch-all).
  2. Application virtual host: the application virtual host responsible for proxing requests to the application, and configured to only reply to a whitelist of host headers.

Note, for instance in Nginx if you only configure the application virtual host, by default, it will also act as the default virtual host despite you having configured a whitelist of host headers.

Below is an example for Nginx. Note for clarity we have only included the virtual host for port 443, but this also extends to virtual hosts running on any other port.

# etc/nginx/nginx.conf
http {
  # ...
  include /etc/nginx/conf.d/*.conf;
}

Default virtual host

Notice, the server_name is _ and the listen directive has it marked as default_server.

# etc/nginx/conf.d/default.conf
server {
  listen 443 default_server;
  listen [::]:443 default_server;
  server_name _;

  # ... 

  return 301 https://www.example.com;
}

Application virtual host

Notice, the server_name is set to the host header whitelist.

# etc/nginx/conf.d/app.conf
server {
  listen 443;
  listen [::]:443;
  server_name www.example.com;

  # ...
}

Workaround 2 - Include application snippet

We strongly recommend that you use the method described in Workaround 1.

If you are not able to upgrade to the patched versions of Invenio-App, you can include the following code snippet in your application to force evaluation of request.hosts.

@app.before_request
def before_request():
    request.host

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

References

@lnielsen lnielsen published to inveniosoftware/invenio-app Jul 15, 2019
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 16, 2019
Reviewed Jun 16, 2020
Last updated Sep 23, 2024

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity Low
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

EPSS score

0.189%
(56th percentile)

Weaknesses

CVE ID

CVE-2019-1020006

GHSA ID

GHSA-94mf-xfg5-r247
Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.