ghsa

A flaw exists in the SAML signature validation method within the Keycloak XMLSignatureUtil class. The method incorrectly determines whether a SAML signature is for the full document or only for specific assertions based on the position of the signature in the XML document, rather than the Reference element used to specify the signed element. This flaw allows attackers to create crafted responses that can bypass the validation, potentially leading to privilege escalation or impersonation attacks.

A misconfiguration flaw was found in Keycloak. This issue can allow an attacker to redirect users to an arbitrary URL if a 'Valid Redirect URI' is set to http://localhost or http://127.0.0.1, enabling sensitive information such as authorization codes to be exposed to the attacker, potentially leading to session hijacking.

Hi, Rspack|Webpack developer team! ## Summary We discovered a DOM Clobbering vulnerability in Webpack’s AutoPublicPathRuntimeModule. The DOM Clobbering gadget in the module can lead to cross-site scripting (XSS) in web pages where scriptless attacker-controlled HTML elements (e.g., an img tag with an unsanitized name attribute) are present. We found the real-world exploitation of this gadget in the Canvas LMS which allows XSS attack happens through an javascript code compiled by Webpack (the vulnerable part is from Webpack). We believe this is a severe issue. If Webpack’s code is not resilient to DOM Clobbering attacks, it could lead to significant security vulnerabilities in any web application using Webpack-compiled code. ## Details ### Backgrounds DOM Clobbering is a type of code-reuse attack where the attacker first embeds a piece of non-script, seemingly benign HTML markups in the webpage (e.g. through a post or comment) and leverages the gadgets (pieces of js code) living in t...

### Summary In Zitadel, even after an organization is deactivated, associated projects, respectively their applications remain active. Users across other organizations can still log in and access through these applications, leading to unauthorized access. Additionally, if a project was deactivated access to applications was also still possible. ### Details The issue stems from the fact that when an organization is deactivated in Zitadel, the applications associated with it do not automatically deactivate. The application lifecycle is not tightly coupled with the organization's lifecycle, leading to a situation where the organization or project is marked as inactive, but its resources remain accessible. ### PoC - Create a new Organization, create new project and setup OpenID connect. - Deactivate an Organization - Setup authentication without selecting Check for Project on Authentication - User is able to login despite the organization is deactivated ### Impact This vulnerability all...

### Impact ZITADEL's user account deactivation mechanism did not work correctly with service accounts. Deactivated service accounts retained the ability to request tokens, which could lead to unauthorized access to applications and resources. ### Patches 2.x versions are fixed on >= [2.62.1](https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v2.62.1) 2.61.x versions are fixed on >= [2.61.1](https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v2.61.1) 2.60.x versions are fixed on >= [2.60.2](https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v2.60.2) 2.59.x versions are fixed on >= [2.59.3](https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v2.59.3) 2.58.x versions are fixed on >= [2.58.5](https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v2.58.5) 2.57.x versions are fixed on >= [2.57.5](https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v2.57.5) 2.56.x versions are fixed on >= [2.56.6](https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v2.56.6) 2.55.x versions are fixed on >= [2.55.8](https://github.com/...

### Impact ZITADEL's user grants deactivation mechanism did not work correctly. Deactivated user grants were still provided in token, which could lead to unauthorized access to applications and resources. Additionally, the management and auth API always returned the state as active or did not provide any information about the state. ### Patches 2.x versions are fixed on >= [2.62.1](https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v2.62.1) 2.61.x versions are fixed on >= [2.61.1](https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v2.61.1) 2.60.x versions are fixed on >= [2.60.2](https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v2.60.2) 2.59.x versions are fixed on >= [2.59.3](https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v2.59.3) 2.58.x versions are fixed on >= [2.58.5](https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v2.58.5) 2.57.x versions are fixed on >= [2.57.5](https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases/tag/v2.57.5) 2.56.x versions are fixed on >= [2.56.6](https://github.com/zitad...

### Summary When parsing unknown fields in the Protobuf Java Lite and Full library, a maliciously crafted message can cause a StackOverflow error and lead to a program crash. Reporter: Alexis Challande, Trail of Bits Ecosystem Security Team <[email protected]> Affected versions: This issue affects all versions of both the Java full and lite Protobuf runtimes, as well as Protobuf for Kotlin and JRuby, which themselves use the Java Protobuf runtime. ### Severity [CVE-2024-7254](https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2024-7254) **High** CVSS4.0 Score 8.7 (NOTE: there may be a delay in publication) This is a potential Denial of Service. Parsing nested groups as unknown fields with DiscardUnknownFieldsParser or Java Protobuf Lite parser, or against Protobuf map fields, creates unbounded recursions that can be abused by an attacker. ### Proof of Concept For reproduction details, please refer to the unit tests (Protobuf Java [LiteTest](https://github.com/protocolbuffer...

### Impact The profile location routine in the referencevalidator commons package is vulnerable to [XML External Entities](https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/2017/A4_2017-XML_External_Entities_(XXE)) attack due to insecure defaults of the used Woodstox WstxInputFactory. A malicious XML resource can lead to network requests issued by referencevalidator and thus to a [Server Side Request Forgery](https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/Server_Side_Request_Forgery) attack. The vulnerability impacts applications which use referencevalidator to process XML resources from untrusted sources. ### Patches The problem has been patched with the [2.5.1 version](https://github.com/gematik/app-referencevalidator/releases/tag/2.5.1) of the referencevalidator. Users are strongly recommended to update to this version or a more recent one. ### Workarounds A pre-processing or manual analysis of input XML resources on existence of DTD definitions or external entities can mitigate the problem. ###...

### Impact SOFA Hessian protocol uses a blacklist mechanism to restrict deserialization of potentially dangerous classes for security protection. But there is a gadget chain that can bypass the SOFA Hessian blacklist protection mechanism, and this gadget chain only relies on JDK and does not rely on any third-party components. ### Patches Fixed this issue by update blacklist, users can upgrade to sofahessian version 3.5.5 to avoid this issue. ### Workarounds You can maintain a blacklist yourself in this directory `external/serialize.blacklist`.

### Impact There is a vulnerability in Traefik that allows the client to remove the X-Forwarded headers (except the header X-Forwarded-For). ### Patches - https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v2.11.9 - https://github.com/traefik/traefik/releases/tag/v3.1.3 ### Workarounds No workaround. ### For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please [open an issue](https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues). <details> <summary>Original Description</summary> ### Summary When a HTTP request is processed by Traefik, certain HTTP headers such as X-Forwarded-Host or X-Forwarded-Port are added by Traefik before the request is routed to the application. For a HTTP client, it should not be possible to remove or modify these headers. Since the application trusts the value of these headers, security implications might arise, if they can be modified. For HTTP/1.1, however, it was found that some of theses custom headers can indeed be removed and in ...