CVE-2020-10771
Public on
Last Modified:
Description
A flaw was found in infinispan-server-rest version 10, where it is possible to perform various actions that could have side effects using GET requests. This flaw allows an attacker to perform a Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attack.
Additional information
- Bugzilla 1846293: infinispan-server-rest: Actions with effects should not be permitted via GET requests using REST API
- CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- FAQ: Frequently asked questions about CVE-2020-10771
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
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).
| Red Hat | NVD | |
|---|---|---|
CVSS v3 Base Score | 7.1 | 7.1 |
Attack Vector | Network | Network |
Attack Complexity | Low | Low |
Privileges Required | None | None |
User Interaction | Required | Required |
Scope | Unchanged | Unchanged |
Confidentiality Impact | None | None |
Integrity Impact | Low | Low |
Availability Impact | High | High |
CVSS v3 Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
Red Hat CVSS v3 Score Explanation
We believe the correct CVSS score should be : 8.2/CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:H
PR:N Privilege required should be none and we have changed it to none to match NVD score.
UI:R User interaction is indeed required and hence we have changed it to UI:R to match with NVD.
C:N The operations which are allowed with GET requests are :
GET /rest/v2/server?action=stop GET /rest/v2/cluster?action=stop GET /rest/v2/tasks/myTask?action=exec¶m.p1=v1¶m.p2=v2 GET /rest/v2/cache-managers/{cacheManagerName}/x-site/backups/{siteName}?action=cancel-push-state GET /rest/v2/cache-managers/{cacheManagerName}/x-site/backups/{siteName}?action=start-push-state GET /rest/v2/cache-managers/{cacheManagerName}/x-site/backups/{siteName}?action=bring-online GET /rest/v2/cache-managers/{cacheManagerName}/x-site/backups/{siteName}?action=take-offline GET /rest/v2/counters/{counterName}?action=compareAndSet&expect={expect}&update={update} GET /rest/v2/counters/{counterName}?action=compareAndSwap&expect={expect}&update={update} GET /rest/v2/counters/{counterName}?action=decrement GET /rest/v2/counters/{counterName}?action=add&delta={delta} GET /rest/v2/counters/{counterName}?action=increment GET /rest/v2/counters/{counterName}?action=reset GET /v2/caches/{cacheName}/x-site/backups/{siteName}?action=cancel-receive-state
And none of them impact the confidentiality of server, hence we have marked it none.
I:L Using just the simple GET request (without BODY), it is not possible to completely modify the content however it is still possible to increase/decrease the values or delete something hence we have marked it Low instead of high.
A:H Availability should be high because a successful attack we can cause server to stop/shutdown. We have changed it high to match with NVD score.
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Confidentiality,Integrity,Availability,Non-Repudiation,Access Control
Technical Impact: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity; Bypass Protection Mechanism; Read Application Data; Modify Application Data; DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart
The consequences will vary depending on the nature of the functionality that is vulnerable to CSRF. An attacker could trick a client into making an unintentional request to the web server via a URL, image load, XMLHttpRequest, etc., which would then be treated as an authentic request from the client - effectively performing any operations as the victim, leading to an exposure of data, unintended code execution, etc. If the victim is an administrator or privileged user, the consequences may include obtaining complete control over the web application - deleting or stealing data, uninstalling the product, or using it to launch other attacks against all of the product's users. Because the attacker has the identity of the victim, the scope of CSRF is limited only by the victim's privileges.
Acknowledgements
This issue was discovered by Diego Lovison (Red Hat).
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?
My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?
What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?
What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?
What is a mitigation?
I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?
Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
