Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix RCE in gateway.downloadBackup #2171

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bnematzadeh
Copy link
Contributor

@bnematzadeh bnematzadeh commented Nov 19, 2024

Description

There is a Remote Code Execution vulnerability in the gateway controller that allows a logged-in user to execute arbitrary commands on the service. The vulnerable sink is located in the gateway.downloadBackup file. The fileUrl value corresponds to the file_url field in the /api/v1/gateway/backup/restore endpoint.

In the gateway.downloadBackup file, the GLADYS_GATEWAY_BACKUP_KEY value is first checked, and if it is not set, an error is thrown (this can be triggered by calling the POST /api/v1/variable/GLADYS_GATEWAY_BACKUP_KEY endpoint). To decrypt the backup, the exec function is used. However, the value of encryptedBackupFilePath is used in exec without being sanitized.

Before executing exec, the server sends a request to the fileUrl. If the link is problematic, an Axios error is returned. If a query string is included in the URL, its value is ignored. The issue here is that a malicious link containing an encrypted file and a hash value with an arbitrary command can be crafted. When this hash value is used in exec, the command gets executed.

Below, I have attached a sample POC and the command I executed. To fix this issue, the # character must also be stripped from the fileWithoutSignedParams.

1

2

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 19, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.53%. Comparing base (7a24976) to head (c58a539).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2171      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   98.52%   98.53%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         868      876       +8     
  Lines       14295    14402     +107     
==========================================
+ Hits        14084    14191     +107     
  Misses        211      211              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.


🚨 Try these New Features:

Copy link

relativeci bot commented Nov 19, 2024

#2888 Bundle Size — 10.34MiB (0%).

c58a539(current) vs 8fff0ca master#2883(baseline)

Warning

Bundle contains 3 duplicate packages – View duplicate packages

Bundle metrics  no changes
                 Current
#2888
     Baseline
#2883
No change  Initial JS 5.62MiB 5.62MiB
No change  Initial CSS 304.89KiB 304.89KiB
Change  Cache Invalidation 0% 57.81%
No change  Chunks 51 51
No change  Assets 172 172
No change  Modules 1507 1507
No change  Duplicate Modules 21 21
No change  Duplicate Code 0.84% 0.84%
No change  Packages 124 124
No change  Duplicate Packages 3 3
Bundle size by type  no changes
                 Current
#2888
     Baseline
#2883
No change  JS 7.41MiB 7.41MiB
No change  IMG 2.49MiB 2.49MiB
No change  CSS 321.68KiB 321.68KiB
No change  Fonts 93.55KiB 93.55KiB
No change  Other 17.7KiB 17.7KiB
No change  HTML 13.58KiB 13.58KiB

Bundle analysis reportBranch bnematzadeh:gladys-sec-2Project dashboard


Generated by RelativeCIDocumentationReport issue

Copy link
Contributor

@Pierre-Gilles Pierre-Gilles left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for this PR! I'm not sure this could ever be exploited as the user is hosting the server himself, but it's still a good thing to fix this :)

Why not use an URL validator to make sure the URL is really valid?

We use Joi in Gladys:

const Joi = require('joi');

const schema = Joi.string().uri();

// Example validation
const url = 'https://example.com';
const { error, value } = schema.validate(url);

Don't forget to add the tests :)

@bnematzadeh
Copy link
Contributor Author

This scenario can be exploited by a new user created by an admin by calling the mentioned endpoint. Using the JoI library you referred to, I defined a regex with the pattern method to remove the specified characters if they appear at the end of a URL and return the cleaned URL. This is because simply using the uri method in this case is not sufficient and can be bypassed with other payloads. I made some changes to coreErrors and added a new custom error for URLs, which I have used both in the gateway file and in its corresponding test file.

@bnematzadeh
Copy link
Contributor Author

bnematzadeh commented Nov 22, 2024

Oops, I think we have a problem. With the changes I've made to the downloadBackup file, two other tests are failing because when the downloadBackup method is called with a non-URL input, it reaches the validator and causes an error. I made a change in the file where, using a function, it checks whether the input is a URL or not. If it is a URL, the validateUrl function is called on it, and if the URL is valid, the value is returned. Otherwise, we're dealing with a local file.

@Pierre-Gilles
Copy link
Contributor

Pierre-Gilles commented Nov 28, 2024

@bnematzadeh I tried with Joi with the native uri check and it works:

Screenshot 2024-11-28 at 13 58 25

Why not use this one? Do you have example of security issues with this ?

@bnematzadeh
Copy link
Contributor Author

bnematzadeh commented Nov 29, 2024

@bnematzadeh I tried with Joi with the native uri check and it works:

Screenshot 2024-11-28 at 13 58 25

Why not use this one? Do you have example of security issues with this ?

The reason I didn’t use the native URI is that it recognizes the following URL as a valid URL and doesn’t handle the rest of the fragment. A custom command can be used inside $() after the fragment, and if the native URI is used, this technique can be bypassed. That’s why I stripped these two characters entirely.

1

Copy link
Contributor

@Pierre-Gilles Pierre-Gilles left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok thanks for you answer! I have a few feedbacks on the PR

// Extract file name
const fileWithoutSignedParams = fileUrl.split('?')[0];

const value = isURL(fileUrl) ? validateUrl(fileUrl) : fileUrl;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure it still works like that, for context, the fileUrl looks like that (it's a dummy URL) :

https://example_storage.com/b6131425-8f90-4a05-ba00-12daf37f8279.enc?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=SDFDSFDSFDSFDSFFDF%2F20241202%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20241202T110928Z&X-Amz-Expires=21600&X-Amz-Signature=6768767678HHkjhjdhfjdshfjhdksfhjdshf&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host

So the get parameters should be removed before doing path.basename()

Having the variable being name value isn't very clear

* @example
* validateUrl();
*/
function validateUrl(url) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You created a generic function "validateUrl" in utils, but isn't this behavior very gateway.downloadBackup specific?

Will this be used elsewhere?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What change should I make so that the GET parameter is removed before it’s passed to path.basename()? The validator I wrote, in my opinion, can be used in other places, but it’s largely tied to gateway.downloadBackup.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants