FKIE_CVE-2020-26877

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2022-06-29 14:15 - Updated: 2026-06-17 03:08
Summary
ApiFest OAuth 2.0 Server 0.3.1 does not validate the redirect URI in accordance with RFC 6749 and is susceptible to an open redirector attack. Specifically, it directly sends an authorization code to the redirect URI submitted with the authorization request, without checking whether the redirect URI is registered by the client who initiated the request. This allows an attacker to craft a request with a manipulated redirect URI (redirect_uri parameter), which is under the attacker's control, and consequently obtain the leaked authorization code when the server redirects the client to the manipulated redirect URI with an authorization code. NOTE: this is similar to CVE-2019-3778.
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
apifest oauth_2.0_server 0.3.1

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "affectedData": [
        {
          "product": "n/a",
          "vendor": "n/a",
          "versions": [
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "n/a"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": "cve@mitre.org"
    }
  ],
  "configurations": [
    {
      "nodes": [
        {
          "cpeMatch": [
            {
              "criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:apifest:oauth_2.0_server:0.3.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
              "matchCriteriaId": "D1D2DA47-EA90-4A68-BE74-29E50FDD726F",
              "vulnerable": true
            }
          ],
          "negate": false,
          "operator": "OR"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "ApiFest OAuth 2.0 Server 0.3.1 does not validate the redirect URI in accordance with RFC 6749 and is susceptible to an open redirector attack. Specifically, it directly sends an authorization code to the redirect URI submitted with the authorization request, without checking whether the redirect URI is registered by the client who initiated the request. This allows an attacker to craft a request with a manipulated redirect URI (redirect_uri parameter), which is under the attacker\u0027s control, and consequently obtain the leaked authorization code when the server redirects the client to the manipulated redirect URI with an authorization code. NOTE: this is similar to CVE-2019-3778."
    },
    {
      "lang": "es",
      "value": "ApiFest OAuth versiones 2.0 Server 0.3.1, no comprueba el URI de redireccionamiento de acuerdo con el RFC 6749 y es susceptible de un ataque de redireccionamiento abierto. En concreto, env\u00eda directamente un c\u00f3digo de autorizaci\u00f3n al URI de redireccionamiento enviado con la petici\u00f3n de autorizaci\u00f3n, sin comprobar si el URI de redireccionamiento est\u00e1 registrado por el cliente que inici\u00f3 la petici\u00f3n. Esto permite a un atacante dise\u00f1ar una petici\u00f3n con un URI de redireccionamiento manipulado (par\u00e1metro redirect_uri), que est\u00e1 bajo el control del atacante, y en consecuencia obtener el c\u00f3digo de autorizaci\u00f3n filtrado cuando el servidor redirige al cliente al URI de redireccionamiento manipulado con un c\u00f3digo de autorizaci\u00f3n. NOTA: esto es similar a CVE-2019-3778"
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2020-26877",
  "lastModified": "2026-06-17T03:08:27.107",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV2": [
      {
        "acInsufInfo": false,
        "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
        "cvssData": {
          "accessComplexity": "MEDIUM",
          "accessVector": "NETWORK",
          "authentication": "NONE",
          "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
          "baseScore": 5.8,
          "confidentialityImpact": "PARTIAL",
          "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL",
          "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:N",
          "version": "2.0"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 8.6,
        "impactScore": 4.9,
        "obtainAllPrivilege": false,
        "obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
        "obtainUserPrivilege": false,
        "source": "nvd@nist.gov",
        "type": "Primary",
        "userInteractionRequired": true
      }
    ],
    "cvssMetricV31": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
          "baseScore": 6.1,
          "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
          "confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
          "integrityImpact": "LOW",
          "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
          "scope": "CHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "REQUIRED",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 2.8,
        "impactScore": 2.7,
        "source": "nvd@nist.gov",
        "type": "Primary"
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2022-06-29T14:15:07.960",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "cve@mitre.org",
      "tags": [
        "Vendor Advisory"
      ],
      "url": "http://www.apifest.org/index.html"
    },
    {
      "source": "cve@mitre.org",
      "tags": [
        "Third Party Advisory"
      ],
      "url": "https://github.com/apifest/apifest-oauth20"
    },
    {
      "source": "cve@mitre.org",
      "tags": [
        "Third Party Advisory"
      ],
      "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-3.1.2.3"
    },
    {
      "source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
      "tags": [
        "Vendor Advisory"
      ],
      "url": "http://www.apifest.org/index.html"
    },
    {
      "source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
      "tags": [
        "Third Party Advisory"
      ],
      "url": "https://github.com/apifest/apifest-oauth20"
    },
    {
      "source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
      "tags": [
        "Third Party Advisory"
      ],
      "url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-3.1.2.3"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "cve@mitre.org",
  "vulnStatus": "Modified",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-601"
        }
      ],
      "source": "nvd@nist.gov",
      "type": "Primary"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Events included in the timeline

Loading timeline…


    Loading…

    Loading…

    Loading…

    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.