Уязвимость переменных среды PL/Perl системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю выполнить произвольный код

Уязвимость команд SET ROLE, SET SESSION системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю повысить свои привилегии и получить доступ к защищаемой информации

Уязвимость компонента libpq системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю обойти существующие ограничения безопасности и выполнить атаку типа «человек посередине»

Уязвимость политики безопасности таблиц с защитой строк CREATE POLICY системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю выполнить произвольные команды

Incomplete tracking in PostgreSQL of tables with row security allows a reused query to view or change different rows from those intended. CVE-2023-2455 and CVE-2016-2193 fixed most interaction between row security and user ID changes. They missed cases where a subquery, WITH query, security invoker view, or SQL-language function references a table with a row-level security policy. This has the same consequences as the two earlier CVEs. That is to say, it leads to potentially incorrect policies being applied in cases where role-specific policies are used and a given query is planned under one role and then executed under other roles. This scenario can happen under security definer functions or when a common user and query is planned initially and then re-used across multiple SET ROLEs. Applying an incorrect policy may permit a user to complete otherwise-forbidden reads and modifications. This affects only databases that have used CREATE POLICY to define a row security policy. An attacker must tailor an attack to a particular application's pattern of query plan reuse, user ID changes, and role-specific row security policies. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Client use of server error message in PostgreSQL allows a server not trusted under current SSL or GSS settings to furnish arbitrary non-NUL bytes to the libpq application. For example, a man-in-the-middle attacker could send a long error message that a human or screen-scraper user of psql mistakes for valid query results. This is probably not a concern for clients where the user interface unambiguously indicates the boundary between one error message and other text. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Incorrect privilege assignment in PostgreSQL allows a less-privileged application user to view or change different rows from those intended. An attack requires the application to use SET ROLE, SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION, or an equivalent feature. The problem arises when an application query uses parameters from the attacker or conveys query results to the attacker. If that query reacts to current_setting('role') or the current user ID, it may modify or return data as though the session had not used SET ROLE or SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION. The attacker does not control which incorrect user ID applies. Query text from less-privileged sources is not a concern here, because SET ROLE and SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION are not sandboxes for unvetted queries. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Incorrect control of environment variables in PostgreSQL PL/Perl allows an unprivileged database user to change sensitive process environment variables (e.g. PATH). That often suffices to enable arbitrary code execution, even if the attacker lacks a database server operating system user. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Уязвимость переменных среды PL/Perl системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю выполнить произвольный код

Уязвимость команд SET ROLE, SET SESSION системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю повысить свои привилегии и получить доступ к защищаемой информации

Уязвимость компонента libpq системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю обойти существующие ограничения безопасности и выполнить атаку типа «человек посередине»

Уязвимость политики безопасности таблиц с защитой строк CREATE POLICY системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю выполнить произвольные команды

Incomplete tracking in PostgreSQL of tables with row security allows a reused query to view or change different rows from those intended. CVE-2023-2455 and CVE-2016-2193 fixed most interaction between row security and user ID changes. They missed cases where a subquery, WITH query, security invoker view, or SQL-language function references a table with a row-level security policy. This has the same consequences as the two earlier CVEs. That is to say, it leads to potentially incorrect policies being applied in cases where role-specific policies are used and a given query is planned under one role and then executed under other roles. This scenario can happen under security definer functions or when a common user and query is planned initially and then re-used across multiple SET ROLEs. Applying an incorrect policy may permit a user to complete otherwise-forbidden reads and modifications. This affects only databases that have used CREATE POLICY to define a row security policy. An attacker must tailor an attack to a particular application's pattern of query plan reuse, user ID changes, and role-specific row security policies. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Client use of server error message in PostgreSQL allows a server not trusted under current SSL or GSS settings to furnish arbitrary non-NUL bytes to the libpq application. For example, a man-in-the-middle attacker could send a long error message that a human or screen-scraper user of psql mistakes for valid query results. This is probably not a concern for clients where the user interface unambiguously indicates the boundary between one error message and other text. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Incorrect privilege assignment in PostgreSQL allows a less-privileged application user to view or change different rows from those intended. An attack requires the application to use SET ROLE, SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION, or an equivalent feature. The problem arises when an application query uses parameters from the attacker or conveys query results to the attacker. If that query reacts to current_setting('role') or the current user ID, it may modify or return data as though the session had not used SET ROLE or SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION. The attacker does not control which incorrect user ID applies. Query text from less-privileged sources is not a concern here, because SET ROLE and SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION are not sandboxes for unvetted queries. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Incorrect control of environment variables in PostgreSQL PL/Perl allows an unprivileged database user to change sensitive process environment variables (e.g. PATH). That often suffices to enable arbitrary code execution, even if the attacker lacks a database server operating system user. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Уязвимость переменных среды PL/Perl системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю выполнить произвольный код

Уязвимость команд SET ROLE, SET SESSION системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю повысить свои привилегии и получить доступ к защищаемой информации

Уязвимость компонента libpq системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю обойти существующие ограничения безопасности и выполнить атаку типа «человек посередине»

Уязвимость политики безопасности таблиц с защитой строк CREATE POLICY системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю выполнить произвольные команды

Incomplete tracking in PostgreSQL of tables with row security allows a reused query to view or change different rows from those intended. CVE-2023-2455 and CVE-2016-2193 fixed most interaction between row security and user ID changes. They missed cases where a subquery, WITH query, security invoker view, or SQL-language function references a table with a row-level security policy. This has the same consequences as the two earlier CVEs. That is to say, it leads to potentially incorrect policies being applied in cases where role-specific policies are used and a given query is planned under one role and then executed under other roles. This scenario can happen under security definer functions or when a common user and query is planned initially and then re-used across multiple SET ROLEs. Applying an incorrect policy may permit a user to complete otherwise-forbidden reads and modifications. This affects only databases that have used CREATE POLICY to define a row security policy. An attacker must tailor an attack to a particular application's pattern of query plan reuse, user ID changes, and role-specific row security policies. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Client use of server error message in PostgreSQL allows a server not trusted under current SSL or GSS settings to furnish arbitrary non-NUL bytes to the libpq application. For example, a man-in-the-middle attacker could send a long error message that a human or screen-scraper user of psql mistakes for valid query results. This is probably not a concern for clients where the user interface unambiguously indicates the boundary between one error message and other text. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Incorrect privilege assignment in PostgreSQL allows a less-privileged application user to view or change different rows from those intended. An attack requires the application to use SET ROLE, SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION, or an equivalent feature. The problem arises when an application query uses parameters from the attacker or conveys query results to the attacker. If that query reacts to current_setting('role') or the current user ID, it may modify or return data as though the session had not used SET ROLE or SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION. The attacker does not control which incorrect user ID applies. Query text from less-privileged sources is not a concern here, because SET ROLE and SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION are not sandboxes for unvetted queries. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Incorrect control of environment variables in PostgreSQL PL/Perl allows an unprivileged database user to change sensitive process environment variables (e.g. PATH). That often suffices to enable arbitrary code execution, even if the attacker lacks a database server operating system user. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Уязвимость переменных среды PL/Perl системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю выполнить произвольный код

Уязвимость команд SET ROLE, SET SESSION системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю повысить свои привилегии и получить доступ к защищаемой информации

Уязвимость компонента libpq системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю обойти существующие ограничения безопасности и выполнить атаку типа «человек посередине»

Уязвимость политики безопасности таблиц с защитой строк CREATE POLICY системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю выполнить произвольные команды

Incomplete tracking in PostgreSQL of tables with row security allows a reused query to view or change different rows from those intended. CVE-2023-2455 and CVE-2016-2193 fixed most interaction between row security and user ID changes. They missed cases where a subquery, WITH query, security invoker view, or SQL-language function references a table with a row-level security policy. This has the same consequences as the two earlier CVEs. That is to say, it leads to potentially incorrect policies being applied in cases where role-specific policies are used and a given query is planned under one role and then executed under other roles. This scenario can happen under security definer functions or when a common user and query is planned initially and then re-used across multiple SET ROLEs. Applying an incorrect policy may permit a user to complete otherwise-forbidden reads and modifications. This affects only databases that have used CREATE POLICY to define a row security policy. An attacker must tailor an attack to a particular application's pattern of query plan reuse, user ID changes, and role-specific row security policies. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Client use of server error message in PostgreSQL allows a server not trusted under current SSL or GSS settings to furnish arbitrary non-NUL bytes to the libpq application. For example, a man-in-the-middle attacker could send a long error message that a human or screen-scraper user of psql mistakes for valid query results. This is probably not a concern for clients where the user interface unambiguously indicates the boundary between one error message and other text. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Incorrect privilege assignment in PostgreSQL allows a less-privileged application user to view or change different rows from those intended. An attack requires the application to use SET ROLE, SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION, or an equivalent feature. The problem arises when an application query uses parameters from the attacker or conveys query results to the attacker. If that query reacts to current_setting('role') or the current user ID, it may modify or return data as though the session had not used SET ROLE or SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION. The attacker does not control which incorrect user ID applies. Query text from less-privileged sources is not a concern here, because SET ROLE and SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION are not sandboxes for unvetted queries. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Incorrect control of environment variables in PostgreSQL PL/Perl allows an unprivileged database user to change sensitive process environment variables (e.g. PATH). That often suffices to enable arbitrary code execution, even if the attacker lacks a database server operating system user. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Уязвимость переменных среды PL/Perl системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю выполнить произвольный код

Уязвимость команд SET ROLE, SET SESSION системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю повысить свои привилегии и получить доступ к защищаемой информации

Уязвимость компонента libpq системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю обойти существующие ограничения безопасности и выполнить атаку типа «человек посередине»

Уязвимость политики безопасности таблиц с защитой строк CREATE POLICY системы управления базами данных PostgreSQL, позволяющая нарушителю выполнить произвольные команды

Incomplete tracking in PostgreSQL of tables with row security allows a reused query to view or change different rows from those intended. CVE-2023-2455 and CVE-2016-2193 fixed most interaction between row security and user ID changes. They missed cases where a subquery, WITH query, security invoker view, or SQL-language function references a table with a row-level security policy. This has the same consequences as the two earlier CVEs. That is to say, it leads to potentially incorrect policies being applied in cases where role-specific policies are used and a given query is planned under one role and then executed under other roles. This scenario can happen under security definer functions or when a common user and query is planned initially and then re-used across multiple SET ROLEs. Applying an incorrect policy may permit a user to complete otherwise-forbidden reads and modifications. This affects only databases that have used CREATE POLICY to define a row security policy. An attacker must tailor an attack to a particular application's pattern of query plan reuse, user ID changes, and role-specific row security policies. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Client use of server error message in PostgreSQL allows a server not trusted under current SSL or GSS settings to furnish arbitrary non-NUL bytes to the libpq application. For example, a man-in-the-middle attacker could send a long error message that a human or screen-scraper user of psql mistakes for valid query results. This is probably not a concern for clients where the user interface unambiguously indicates the boundary between one error message and other text. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Incorrect privilege assignment in PostgreSQL allows a less-privileged application user to view or change different rows from those intended. An attack requires the application to use SET ROLE, SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION, or an equivalent feature. The problem arises when an application query uses parameters from the attacker or conveys query results to the attacker. If that query reacts to current_setting('role') or the current user ID, it may modify or return data as though the session had not used SET ROLE or SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION. The attacker does not control which incorrect user ID applies. Query text from less-privileged sources is not a concern here, because SET ROLE and SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION are not sandboxes for unvetted queries. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Incorrect control of environment variables in PostgreSQL PL/Perl allows an unprivileged database user to change sensitive process environment variables (e.g. PATH). That often suffices to enable arbitrary code execution, even if the attacker lacks a database server operating system user. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Уязвимость метода SessionListener#sessionDestroyed() контейнера сервлетов Eclipse Jetty, позволяющая нарушителю повысить свои привилегии

Уязвимость контейнера сервлетов Jetty, связанная с неправильной авторизацией, позволяющая нарушителю получить доступ к конфиденциальным данным

Уязвимость контейнера сервлетов Eclipse Jetty, существующая из-за недостаточной проверки входных данных, позволяющая нарушителю привести к сбоям в сценарии прокси

Уязвимость функций HttpServletRequest.getParameter() иHttpServletRequest.getParts() контейнера сервлетов Eclipse Jetty, позволяющая нарушителю вызвать отказ в обслуживании

Уязвимость контейнера сервлетов Eclipse Jetty, связанная с отсутствием защиты служебных данных, позволяющая нарушителю получить конфиденциальную информацию

Уязвимость контейнера сервлетов Eclipse Jetty, связанная с недостаточным управлением системными ресурсами, позволяющая нарушителю вызвать отказ в обслуживании

Уязвимость контейнера сервлетов Eclipse Jetty, связанная с ошибками проверки синтаксической корректности ввода, позволяющая нарушителю внедрить одни cookies внутрь других и повлиять на их обработку

Уязвимость класса OpenIdAuthenticator контейнера сервлетов Eclipse Jetty, позволяющая нарушителю обойти ограничения безопасности

Уязвимость реализации протокола HTTP/2, связанная с возможностью формирования потока запросов в рамках уже установленного сетевого соединения, без открытия новых сетевых соединений и без подтверждения получения пакетов, позволяющая нарушителю вызвать отказ в обслуживании

Уязвимость контейнера сервлетов Eclipse Jetty, связанная с ошибками при обработке параметров длины входных данных, позволяющая нарушителю выполнять атаку «контрабанда HTTP-запросов»

Уязвимость контейнера сервлетов Eclipse Jetty, связанная с неконтролируемым потреблением ресурсов, позволяющая нарушителю ограничить сервер на принятие новые соединения от действительных клиентов

Уязвимость контейнера сервлетов Eclipse Jetty, связанная с неправильной нейтрализацией синтаксиса цитирования, позволяющая нарушителю выполнить произвольный код

For Eclipse Jetty versions <= 9.4.40, <= 10.0.2, <= 11.0.2, it is possible for requests to the ConcatServlet with a doubly encoded path to access protected resources within the WEB-INF directory. For example a request to `/concat?/%2557EB-INF/web.xml` can retrieve the web.xml file. This can reveal sensitive information regarding the implementation of a web application.

For Eclipse Jetty versions <= 9.4.40, <= 10.0.2, <= 11.0.2, if an exception is thrown from the SessionListener#sessionDestroyed() method, then the session ID is not invalidated in the session ID manager. On deployments with clustered sessions and multiple contexts this can result in a session not being invalidated. This can result in an application used on a shared computer being left logged in.

For Eclipse Jetty versions 9.4.37-9.4.42, 10.0.1-10.0.5 & 11.0.1-11.0.5, URIs can be crafted using some encoded characters to access the content of the WEB-INF directory and/or bypass some security constraints. This is a variation of the vulnerability reported in CVE-2021-28164/GHSA-v7ff-8wcx-gmc5.

In Eclipse Jetty versions 9.4.0 thru 9.4.46, and 10.0.0 thru 10.0.9, and 11.0.0 thru 11.0.9 versions, the parsing of the authority segment of an http scheme URI, the Jetty HttpURI class improperly detects an invalid input as a hostname. This can lead to failures in a Proxy scenario.

In Eclipse Jetty HTTP/2 server implementation, when encountering an invalid HTTP/2 request, the error handling has a bug that can wind up not properly cleaning up the active connections and associated resources. This can lead to a Denial of Service scenario where there are no enough resources left to process good requests.

Jetty is a java based web server and servlet engine. In affected versions servlets with multipart support (e.g. annotated with `@MultipartConfig`) that call `HttpServletRequest.getParameter()` or `HttpServletRequest.getParts()` may cause `OutOfMemoryError` when the client sends a multipart request with a part that has a name but no filename and very large content. This happens even with the default settings of `fileSizeThreshold=0` which should stream the whole part content to disk. An attacker client may send a large multipart request and cause the server to throw `OutOfMemoryError`. However, the server may be able to recover after the `OutOfMemoryError` and continue its service -- although it may take some time. This issue has been patched in versions 9.4.51, 10.0.14, and 11.0.14. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade may set the multipart parameter `maxRequestSize` which must be set to a non-negative value, so the whole multipart content is limited (although still read into memory).

Jetty is a java based web server and servlet engine. Nonstandard cookie parsing in Jetty may allow an attacker to smuggle cookies within other cookies, or otherwise perform unintended behavior by tampering with the cookie parsing mechanism. If Jetty sees a cookie VALUE that starts with `"` (double quote), it will continue to read the cookie string until it sees a closing quote -- even if a semicolon is encountered. So, a cookie header such as: `DISPLAY_LANGUAGE="b; JSESSIONID=1337; c=d"` will be parsed as one cookie, with the name DISPLAY_LANGUAGE and a value of b; JSESSIONID=1337; c=d instead of 3 separate cookies. This has security implications because if, say, JSESSIONID is an HttpOnly cookie, and the DISPLAY_LANGUAGE cookie value is rendered on the page, an attacker can smuggle the JSESSIONID cookie into the DISPLAY_LANGUAGE cookie and thereby exfiltrate it. This is significant when an intermediary is enacting some policy based on cookies, so a smuggled cookie can bypass that policy yet still be seen by the Jetty server or its logging system. This issue has been addressed in versions 9.4.51, 10.0.14, 11.0.14, and 12.0.0.beta0 and users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this issue.

Eclipse Jetty provides a web server and servlet container. In versions 11.0.0 through 11.0.15, 10.0.0 through 10.0.15, and 9.0.0 through 9.4.52, an integer overflow in `MetaDataBuilder.checkSize` allows for HTTP/2 HPACK header values to exceed their size limit. `MetaDataBuilder.java` determines if a header name or value exceeds the size limit, and throws an exception if the limit is exceeded. However, when length is very large and huffman is true, the multiplication by 4 in line 295 will overflow, and length will become negative. `(_size+length)` will now be negative, and the check on line 296 will not be triggered. Furthermore, `MetaDataBuilder.checkSize` allows for user-entered HPACK header value sizes to be negative, potentially leading to a very large buffer allocation later on when the user-entered size is multiplied by 2. This means that if a user provides a negative length value (or, more precisely, a length value which, when multiplied by the 4/3 fudge factor, is negative), and this length value is a very large positive number when multiplied by 2, then the user can cause a very large buffer to be allocated on the server. Users of HTTP/2 can be impacted by a remote denial of service attack. The issue has been fixed in versions 11.0.16, 10.0.16, and 9.4.53. There are no known workarounds.

Eclipse Jetty Canonical Repository is the canonical repository for the Jetty project. Users of the CgiServlet with a very specific command structure may have the wrong command executed. If a user sends a request to a org.eclipse.jetty.servlets.CGI Servlet for a binary with a space in its name, the servlet will escape the command by wrapping it in quotation marks. This wrapped command, plus an optional command prefix, will then be executed through a call to Runtime.exec. If the original binary name provided by the user contains a quotation mark followed by a space, the resulting command line will contain multiple tokens instead of one. This issue was patched in version 9.4.52, 10.0.16, 11.0.16 and 12.0.0-beta2.

Jetty is a Java based web server and servlet engine. Prior to versions 9.4.52, 10.0.16, 11.0.16, and 12.0.1, Jetty accepts the `+` character proceeding the content-length value in a HTTP/1 header field. This is more permissive than allowed by the RFC and other servers routinely reject such requests with 400 responses. There is no known exploit scenario, but it is conceivable that request smuggling could result if jetty is used in combination with a server that does not close the connection after sending such a 400 response. Versions 9.4.52, 10.0.16, 11.0.16, and 12.0.1 contain a patch for this issue. There is no workaround as there is no known exploit scenario.

Jetty is a Java based web server and servlet engine. Versions 9.4.21 through 9.4.51, 10.0.15, and 11.0.15 are vulnerable to weak authentication. If a Jetty `OpenIdAuthenticator` uses the optional nested `LoginService`, and that `LoginService` decides to revoke an already authenticated user, then the current request will still treat the user as authenticated. The authentication is then cleared from the session and subsequent requests will not be treated as authenticated. So a request on a previously authenticated session could be allowed to bypass authentication after it had been rejected by the `LoginService`. This impacts usages of the jetty-openid which have configured a nested `LoginService` and where that `LoginService` will is capable of rejecting previously authenticated users. Versions 9.4.52, 10.0.16, and 11.0.16 have a patch for this issue.

The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023.

Jetty is a Java based web server and servlet engine. An HTTP/2 SSL connection that is established and TCP congested will be leaked when it times out. An attacker can cause many connections to end up in this state, and the server may run out of file descriptors, eventually causing the server to stop accepting new connections from valid clients. The vulnerability is patched in 9.4.54, 10.0.20, 11.0.20, and 12.0.6.

There exists a security vulnerability in Jetty's ThreadLimitHandler.getRemote() which can be exploited by unauthorized users to cause remote denial-of-service (DoS) attack. By repeatedly sending crafted requests, attackers can trigger OutofMemory errors and exhaust the server's memory.