CVE-2019-20372
Description
From CVE.org
NGINX before 1.17.7, with certain error_page configurations, allows HTTP request smuggling, as demonstrated by the ability of an attacker to read unauthorized web pages in environments where NGINX is being fronted by a load balancer.
Statement
Ansible Tower 3.5 and 3.6 are not vulnerable by default as are not using error_page variable in the nginx configuration. However, Ansible Tower 3.5 and 3.6 are distributing nginx 1.14 and 1.16 vulnerable versions as a dependency and configuration could be modified making it vulnerable.
Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine 5.9 and 5.10 are not vulnerable by default as are not using error_page variable in the nginx configuration. However, both mentioned builds ships vulnerable nginx versions 1.10 and 1.14 respectively. CloudForms 5.11 does not use nginx directly hence it is not vulnerable.
Red Hat Quay's configuration of nginx means it's not affected by this issue. It doesn't use error_page to do a 302 redirect. It's only use of error_page uses a named location ie: error_page 404 /404.html; location = /40x.html { } error_page 500 502 503 504 /50x.html; location = /50x.html { }
Mitigation
To mitigate this issue, use a named location instead of having the error_page handler do the redirect, this configuration is not vulnerable to request smuggling on all versions of NGINX we tested.
server {
listen 80;
server_name localhost;
error_page 401 @401;
location / {
return 401;
}
location @401 {
return 302 http://example.org;
}
}
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 5.3 | 5.3 | N/A |
| Attack Vector | Network | Network | N/A |
| Attack Complexity | Low | Low | N/A |
| Privileges Required | None | None | N/A |
| User Interaction | None | None | N/A |
| Scope | Unchanged | Unchanged | N/A |
| Confidentiality | Low | Low | N/A |
| Integrity Impact | None | None | N/A |
| Availability Impact | None | None | N/A |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Integrity,Non-Repudiation,Access Control
Technical Impact: Unexpected State; Hide Activities; Bypass Protection Mechanism
An attacker could create HTTP messages to exploit a number of weaknesses including 1) the message can trick the web server to associate a URL with another URL's webpage and caching the contents of the webpage (web cache poisoning attack), 2) the message can be structured to bypass the firewall protection mechanisms and gain unauthorized access to a web application, and 3) the message can invoke a script or a page that returns client credentials (similar to a Cross Site Scripting attack).
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
