GHSA-pppj-hq3g-57pj
ADVISORY - githubSummary
JupyterLab 4.5+ allows notebook settings to be shared and applied through an overrides.json file using the Import button in the Settings Editor.
Certain notebook display settings were not properly validated before being applied. As a result, a crafted settings file could contain hidden instructions that run as code inside JupyterLab when imported, instead of only changing a display preference.
Because importing a settings file appears harmless, a user could import a file shared by another party without realizing it could do more. On multi-tenant file systems without proper permission control, another user could plant a malicious overrides.json.
CVE assignment pending, GitHub CNA is experiencing severe backlog
Impact
When a malicious settings file is applied, the embedded code runs with the same access as the affected user. This could allow an attacker to read or modify that user's notebooks and files, and to run code on the user's behalf through the notebook server, including on any connected kernel.
User Interaction vs Privileges Required
Write access to a loaded settings location
If an attacker can write to a directory JupyterLab loads settings from (e.g. on shared or multi-tenant file system), they could place a crafted overrides.json that is applied to another user automatically at startup. This requires high privilages but no action by the victim.
User-imported settings file
A user can import a crafted overrides.json through the Import button in the Settings Editor, having received it from another party. This requires no privileges but a deliberate action by the victim, who reasonably expects a settings file to change preferences rather than run code.
Patches
JupyterLab 4.6.2 and 4.5.10 were patched.
Workarounds
None
Hardening
- Treat a settings file as something that can affect how JupyterLab behaves, not only how it appears. Administrators are encouraged to establish a trusted process for distributing configuration rather than relying on ad-hoc importing of shared files.
- On multi-tenant or shared file systems, restrict write permissions on the application settings directory and other Jupyter configuration paths so that one user cannot place an
overrides.json(or other configuration) readable by another user. A settings file in these locations is applied automatically, without an import step, so directory permissions are the primary control against cross-user tampering.
GitHub
CVSS SCORE
8.6high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| jupyterlab | pypi | - | - | >=4.6.0,<=4.6.1 | 4.6.2 |
| jupyterlab | pypi | - | - | >=3.3.0,<=4.5.9 | 4.5.10 |
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.
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a targeted user to perform specific, conscious interactions with the vulnerable system and the attacker's payload, or the user's interactions would actively subvert protection mechanisms which would lead to exploitation of the vulnerability. Examples include: importing a file into a vulnerable system in a specific manner placing files into a specific directory prior to executing code submitting a specific string into a web application (e.g. reflected or self XSS) dismiss or accept prompts or security warnings prior to taking an action (e.g. opening/editing a file, connecting a device).
There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System 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 no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
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 Vulnerable System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Subsequent System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System.