CVE-2022-45786
20h40 +00:00
Deskripsi CVE
Apache AGE: Python and Golang drivers allow data manipulation and exposure due to SQL injection
There are issues with the AGE drivers for Golang and Python that enable SQL injections to occur. This impacts AGE for PostgreSQL 11 & AGE for PostgreSQL 12, all versions up-to-and-including 1.1.0, when using those drivers. The fix is to update to the latest Golang and Python drivers in addition to the latest version of AGE that is used for PostgreSQL 11 or PostgreSQL 12. The update of AGE will add a new function to enable parameterization of the cypher() function, which, in conjunction with the driver updates, will resolve this issue. Background (for those who want more information): After thoroughly researching this issue, we found that due to the nature of the cypher() function, it was not easy to parameterize the values passed into it. This enabled SQL injections, if the developer of the driver wasn't careful. The developer of the Golang and Pyton drivers didn't fully utilize parameterization, likely because of this, thus enabling SQL injections. The obvious fix to this issue is to use parameterization in the drivers for all PG SQL queries. However, parameterizing all PG queries is complicated by the fact that the cypher() function call itself cannot be parameterized directly, as it isn't a real function. At least, not the parameters that would take the graph name and cypher query. The reason the cypher() function cannot have those values parameterized is because the function is a placeholder and never actually runs. The cypher() function node, created by PG in the query tree, is transformed and replaced with a query tree for the actual cypher query during the analyze phase. The problem is that parameters - that would be passed in and that the cypher() function transform needs to be resolved - are only resolved in the execution phase, which is much later. Since the transform of the cypher() function needs to know the graph name and cypher query prior to execution, they can't be passed as parameters. The fix that we are testing right now, and are proposing to use, is to create a function that will be called prior to the execution of the cypher() function transform. This new function will allow values to be passed as parameters for the graph name and cypher query. As this command will be executed prior to the cypher() function transform, its values will be resolved. These values can then be cached for the immediately following cypher() function transform to use. As added features, the cached values will store the calling session's pid, for validation. And, the cypher() function transform will clear this cached information after function invocation, regardless of whether it was used. This method will allow the parameterizing of the cypher() function indirectly and provide a way to lock out SQL injection attacks.Informasi CVE
Kelemahan Terkait
| Nama Kelemahan | Sumber | |
|---|---|---|
| Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data. |
Metrik
| Metrik | Skor | Tingkat keparahan | CVSS Vektor | Sumber |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 8.1 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Informasi lebih lanjut
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe 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. High successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThese 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 |
EPSS
Skor EPSS
Persentil EPSS
Produk yang Disebutkan
Konfigurasi 0
Apache>>Age >> Version Hingga (termasuk) 1.1.0
