Security
Headlines
HeadlinesLatestCVEs

Headline

CVE-2021-4111: Business Logic Errors in yetiforcecrm

yetiforcecrm is vulnerable to Business Logic Errors

CVE
#vulnerability#git#php

Valid

Reported on

Dec 10th 2021

Description

The application is vulnerable to Business Logic error through negative product amount.

Proof of Concept

Step 1: Login into the application https://gitstable.yetiforce.com/index.php

Step 2: Navigate to Database -> Product -> Edit any product.

Step 3: Now enter a negative amount in Unit Price field and click on save. Here a product is added with a negative amount.

It’s hard to say if this is an error or not. We have some clients who needed negative values in here. However, we do agree that the basic assumptions shouldn’t allow negative values.

Yes this is business logic flaw as keeping a product in negative amount doesn’t make any sense. Nobody manufacture a product without investing amount. Also, a product with negative amount can lead to financial loss while checkout and hence negative amount shouldn’t be allowed and a minimum product amount value (Example : greater than 0 zł) should be set and validated at both client and server side.

PS: As per this application it is an error and you can validate the product amount.

Cheers

The fix bounty is now up for grabs

Hey @dev696,

A real researcher will not just copy all the content from other reports. You should try to write your reports by yourself. What have you learned after reporting this vulnerability? Just earn the bounty or improve your skills in cybersecurity?

What a shame on you!

The maintainer should be aware of this person, he is not a researcher, he is a copier!

What’s up?

  1. https://huntr.dev/bounties/0b81e572-bdc9-4caf-aa02-81f3c7ad7c0a/
  2. https://huntr.dev/bounties/8afc8981-baff-4082-b640-be535b29eb9a/ These two reports seem to be dupe in some way, Can you please make a fair judgment?@admin

In my opinion these are two different issues because they concern different fields and two validators (each field type has different validation rules) but a common data validation mechanism.

Bug fixed in 6.3.0_SecurityFix https://github.com/YetiForceCompany/UpdatePackages/tree/master/YetiForce%20CRM%206.x.x/6.3.0_SecurityFix/zip

to join this conversation

It’s hard to say if this is an error or not. We have some clients who needed negative values in here. However, we do agree that the basic assumptions shouldn’t allow negative values.

Yes this is business logic flaw as keeping a product in negative amount doesn’t make any sense. Nobody manufacture a product without investing amount. Also, a product with negative amount can lead to financial loss while checkout and hence negative amount shouldn’t be allowed and a minimum product amount value (Example : greater than 0 zł) should be set and validated at both client and server side.

PS: As per this application it is an error and you can validate the product amount.

Cheers

The fix bounty is now up for grabs

Hey @dev696,

A real researcher will not just copy all the content from other reports. You should try to write your reports by yourself. What have you learned after reporting this vulnerability? Just earn the bounty or improve your skills in cybersecurity?

What a shame on you!

The maintainer should be aware of this person, he is not a researcher, he is a copier!

What’s up?

  1. https://huntr.dev/bounties/0b81e572-bdc9-4caf-aa02-81f3c7ad7c0a/
  2. https://huntr.dev/bounties/8afc8981-baff-4082-b640-be535b29eb9a/ These two reports seem to be dupe in some way, Can you please make a fair judgment?@admin

In my opinion these are two different issues because they concern different fields and two validators (each field type has different validation rules) but a common data validation mechanism.

Bug fixed in 6.3.0_SecurityFix https://github.com/YetiForceCompany/UpdatePackages/tree/master/YetiForce%20CRM%206.x.x/6.3.0_SecurityFix/zip

to join this conversation

CVE: Latest News

CVE-2023-50976: Transactions API Authorization by oleiman · Pull Request #14969 · redpanda-data/redpanda
CVE-2023-6905
CVE-2023-6903
CVE-2023-6904
CVE-2023-3907