Skip to content

Nuxt Icon affected by a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Aug 5, 2024 in nuxt/icon • Updated Aug 6, 2024

Package

npm @nuxt/icon (npm)

Affected versions

<= 1.4.4

Patched versions

1.4.5

Description

Summary

nuxt/icon provides an API to allow client side icon lookup. This endpoint is at /api/_nuxt_icon/[name].

The proxied request path is improperly parsed, allowing an attacker to change the scheme and host of the request. This leads to SSRF, and could potentially lead to sensitive data exposure.

Details

The new URL constructor is used to parse the final path. This constructor can be passed a relative scheme or path in order to change the host the request is sent to. This constructor is also very tolerant of poorly formatted URLs.

As a result we can pass a path prefixed with the string http:. This has the effect of changing the scheme to HTTP. We can then subsequently pass a new host, for example http:127.0.0.1:8080. This would allow us to send requests to a local server.

PoC

Make a request to /api/_nuxt_icon/http:example.com, observe the data returned has been fetched from a different resource than intended.

I typically try to find an example within Nuxt infrastructure that is vulnerable to these types of bugs, but I could not identify any with this endpoint enabled.

Impact

  • SSRF, potential sensitive data exposure.
  • I do not believe this can be chained into an XSS, but it may be possible.
  • Does not have a security impact on services deployed on Cloudflare Workers.
  • Does not impact certain builds and modes (like static builds).
  • Can be mitigated using by disabling the fallbackToApi option.

Fix

  • Ensure the host has not been changed after the path is parsed.
  • Alternatively, prefix the path with ./.

References

@antfu antfu published to nuxt/icon Aug 5, 2024
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Aug 5, 2024
Reviewed Aug 5, 2024
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Aug 5, 2024
Last updated Aug 6, 2024

Severity

High

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 None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity None
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:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

0.087%
(38th percentile)

Weaknesses

CVE ID

CVE-2024-42352

GHSA ID

GHSA-cxgv-px37-4mp2

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.