CVE-2019-9636

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

Description

It was discovered that python's functions urllib.parse.urlsplit and urllib.parse.urlparse do not properly handle URLs encoded with Punycode/Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA), which may result in a wrong domain name (specifically the netloc component of URL - user@domain:port) being returned by those functions. When an application parses user-supplied URLs to store cookies, authentication credentials, or other kind of information, it is possible for an attacker to provide specially crafted URLs to make the application locate host-related information (e.g. cookies, authentication data) and send them to a different host than where it should, unlike if the URLs had been correctly parsed. The result of an attack may vary based on the application.

It was discovered that python's functions urllib.parse.urlsplit and urllib.parse.urlparse do not properly handle URLs encoded with Punycode/Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA), which may result in a wrong domain name (specifically the netloc component of URL - user@domain:port) being returned by those functions. When an application parses user-supplied URLs to store cookies, authentication credentials, or other kind of information, it is possible for an attacker to provide specially crafted URLs to make the application locate host-related information (e.g. cookies, authentication data) and send them to a different host than where it should, unlike if the URLs had been correctly parsed. The result of an attack may vary based on the application.

Additional information

  • Bugzilla 1688543: python: Information Disclosure due to urlsplit improper NFKC normalization
  • CWE-172: Encoding Error
  • FAQ: Frequently asked questions about CVE-2019-9636

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).

CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
Red HatNVD

CVSS v3 Base Score

9.8

9.8

Attack Vector

Network

Network

Attack Complexity

Low

Low

Privileges Required

None

None

User Interaction

None

None

Scope

Unchanged

Unchanged

Confidentiality Impact

High

High

Integrity Impact

High

High

Availability Impact

High

High

CVSS v3 Vector

Red Hat: CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Understanding the Weakness (CWE)

CWE-172

Integrity

Technical Impact: Unexpected State

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?

My product is listed as "Out of Support Scope". What does this mean?

Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.