Attacker Value
Unknown
(0 users assessed)
Exploitability
Unknown
(0 users assessed)
User Interaction
Required
Privileges Required
None
Attack Vector
Network
0

CVE-2021-32618

Disclosure Date: May 17, 2021
Add MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques that apply to this CVE.

Description

The Python “Flask-Security-Too” package is used for adding security features to your Flask application. It is an is an independently maintained version of Flask-Security based on the 3.0.0 version of Flask-Security. All versions of Flask-Security-Too allow redirects after many successful views (e.g. /login) by honoring the ?next query param. There is code in FS to validate that the url specified in the next parameter is either relative OR has the same netloc (network location) as the requesting URL. This check utilizes Pythons urlsplit library. However many browsers are very lenient on the kind of URL they accept and ‘fill in the blanks’ when presented with a possibly incomplete URL. As a concrete example – setting http://login?next=\github.com will pass FS’s relative URL check however many browsers will gladly convert this to http://github.com. Thus an attacker could send such a link to an unwitting user, using a legitimate site and have it redirect to whatever site they want. This is considered a low severity due to the fact that if Werkzeug is used (which is very common with Flask applications) as the WSGI layer, it by default ALWAYS ensures that the Location header is absolute – thus making this attack vector mute. It is possible for application writers to modify this default behavior by setting the ‘autocorrect_location_header=False`.

Add Assessment

No one has assessed this topic. Be the first to add your voice to the community.

CVSS V3 Severity and Metrics
Base Score:
6.1 Medium
Impact Score:
2.7
Exploitability Score:
2.8
Vector:
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Attack Vector (AV):
Network
Attack Complexity (AC):
Low
Privileges Required (PR):
None
User Interaction (UI):
Required
Scope (S):
Changed
Confidentiality (C):
Low
Integrity (I):
Low
Availability (A):
None

General Information

Products

Weaknesses

Additional Info

Technical Analysis