RubyGems version 2.6.12 and earlier fails to validate specification names, allowing a maliciously crafted gem to potentially overwrite any …
RubyGems version 2.6.12 and earlier fails to validate specification names, allowing a maliciously crafted gem to potentially overwrite any file on the filesystem.
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as control elements or syntactic markers when they are sent to a downstream component.
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/138.html →Open in CWE collection →The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/22.html →Open in CWE collection →An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/15.html →Open in CAPEC collection →https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/34.html →Open in CAPEC collection →
This attack targets the encoding of the URL combined with the encoding of the slash characters. An attacker can take advantage of the multiple ways of encoding a URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. A URL may contain special character that need special syntax handling in order to be interpreted. Special characters are represented using a percentage character followed by two digits representing the octet code of the original character (%HEX-CODE). For instance US-ASCII space character would be represented with %20. This is often referred as escaped ending or percent-encoding. Since the server decodes the URL from the requests, it may restrict the access to some URL paths by validating and filtering out the URL requests it received. An attacker will try to craft an URL with a sequence of special characters which once interpreted by the server will be equivalent to a forbidden URL. It can be difficult to protect against this attack since the URL can contain other format of encoding such as UTF-8 encoding, Unicode-encoding, etc.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/64.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/76.html →Open in CAPEC collection →This attack targets the use of the backslash in alternate encoding. An adversary can provide a backslash as a leading character and causes a parser to believe that the next character is special. This is called an escape. By using that trick, the adversary tries to exploit alternate ways to encode the same character which leads to filter problems and opens avenues to attack.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/78.html →Open in CAPEC collection →This attack targets the encoding of the Slash characters. An adversary would try to exploit common filtering problems related to the use of the slashes characters to gain access to resources on the target host. Directory-driven systems, such as file systems and databases, typically use the slash character to indicate traversal between directories or other container components. For murky historical reasons, PCs (and, as a result, Microsoft OSs) choose to use a backslash, whereas the UNIX world typically makes use of the forward slash. The schizophrenic result is that many MS-based systems are required to understand both forms of the slash. This gives the adversary many opportunities to discover and abuse a number of common filtering problems. The goal of this pattern is to discover server software that only applies filters to one version, but not the other.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html →Open in CAPEC collection →https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/105.html →Open in CAPEC collection →
An adversary uses path manipulation methods to exploit insufficient input validation of a target to obtain access to data that should be not be retrievable by ordinary well-formed requests. A typical variety of this attack involves specifying a path to a desired file together with dot-dot-slash characters, resulting in the file access API or function traversing out of the intended directory structure and into the root file system. By replacing or modifying the expected path information the access function or API retrieves the file desired by the attacker. These attacks either involve the attacker providing a complete path to a targeted file or using control characters (e.g. path separators (/ or \) and/or dots (.)) to reach desired directories or files.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/126.html →Open in CAPEC collection →| Product | Vendor | Status |
|---|---|---|
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| jruby | Tracked | |
| rh-ruby22-ruby | Tracked | |
| rh-ruby22-ruby | Tracked | |
| rh-ruby22-ruby | Tracked | |
| rh-ruby22-ruby | Tracked |