Skip to content

OTF-001: Improper Input Sanitation: The path parameter of the requested URL is not sanitized before being passed to the QT frontend

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jan 18, 2022 in onionshare/onionshare • Updated Oct 7, 2024

Package

pip onionshare-cli (pip)

Affected versions

< 2.5

Patched versions

2.5

Description

Between September 26, 2021 and October 8, 2021, Radically Open Security conducted a penetration test of OnionShare 2.4, funded by the Open Technology Fund's Red Team lab. This is an issue from that penetration test.

  • Vulnerability ID: OTF-001
  • Vulnerability type: Improper Input Sanitization
  • Threat level: Elevated

Description:

The path parameter of the requested URL is not sanitized before being passed to the QT frontend.

Technical description:

The path parameter is not sanitized before being passed to the constructor of the QLabel.

https://github.com/onionshare/onionshare/blob/d08d5f0f32f755f504494d80794886f346fbafdb/desktop/src/onionshare/tab/mode/__init__.py#L499-L509

https://github.com/onionshare/onionshare/blob/d08d5f0f32f755f504494d80794886f346fbafdb/desktop/src/onionshare/tab/mode/history.py#L456-L483

https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qlabel.html#details

Warning: When passing a QString to the constructor or calling setText(), make sure to sanitize your input, as QLabel tries to guess whether it displays the text as plain text or as rich text, a subset of HTML 4 markup. You may want to call setTextFormat() explicitly, e.g. in case you expect the text to be in plain format but cannot control the text source (for instance when displaying data loaded from the Web).

This path is used in all components for displaying the server access history. This leads to a rendered HTML4 Subset (QT RichText editor) in the Onionshare frontend.

In the following example an adversary injects a crafted image file into an Onionshare instance with receive mode and renders it in the history component of the Onionshare application.

The only requirement is another visit to the shared site with the following parameter attached to the path of the URL:

<img src='' />

This will be rendered as a green square in the history tab where the path value is supposed to be (the value itself is shown at the bottom of the page).

otf-001

Possible scenarios where this could lead to remote code execution would be a 0-day in libpng or other internal image rendering (OTF-014 (page 12)) of the QT framework.

The QT documentation indicates that external files could be rendered, but we were unable to find a QT code path allowing for it.

Impact:

An adversary with knowledge of the Onion service address in public mode or with authentication in private mode can render arbitrary HTML (QT-HTML4 Subset) in the server desktop application. This requires the desktop application with rendered history, therefore the impact is only elevated.

Recommendation:

  • Manually define the text format of the QLabel via setTextFormat()

References

@micahflee micahflee published to onionshare/onionshare Jan 18, 2022
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jan 18, 2022
Reviewed Jan 19, 2022
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jan 21, 2022
Last updated Oct 7, 2024

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required Low
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(55th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2022-21690

GHSA ID

GHSA-ch22-x2v3-v6vq

Source code

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.