GHSA-xx64-wwv2-hcqq
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Impact
In versions 0.6.0 and earlier of astral-tokio-tar, the unpack_in API could inadvertently modify the permissions of external (i.e. non-archive) directories outside of the archive. An attacker could use this to contrite a tar archive that maliciously changes directory permissions outside of its intended hierarchy. This flaw only affects directories; individual file permissions cannot be modified via it.
See GHSA-j4xf-2g29-59ph for the equivalent flaw in the tar crate.
Patches
Versions 0.6.1 and newer of astral-tokio-tar use fs::symlink_metdata rather than fs::metadata, avoiding the traversal.
Workarounds
Users are advised to upgrade to version 0.6.1 or newer to address this advisory.
Users should experience no breaking changes as a result of the patch above.
Resources
- GHSA-j4xf-2g29-59ph for the original
tarvulnerability
Attribution
- Reporter: Adam Harvey (@lawngnome)
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
UNIX Symbolic Link (Symlink) Following
GitHub
-
CVSS SCORE
2.7low| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| astral-tokio-tar | cargo | - | - | <=0.6.0 | 0.6.1 |
CVSS:4 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).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
The attacker is unauthenticated 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 human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
RustSec
-
Chainguard
CGA-9x29-c5cx-9r8f
-
minimos
MINI-wwpg-3227-phxw
-