GHSA-GCV9-6737-PJQW

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-01-27 16:24 – Updated: 2024-09-24 18:39
VLAI
Summary
SSRF vulnerability in jupyter-server-proxy
Details

Impact

What kind of vulnerability is it? Server-Side Request Forgery ( SSRF )

Who is impacted? Any user deploying Jupyter Server or Notebook with jupyter-proxy-server extension enabled.

A lack of input validation allowed authenticated clients to proxy requests to other hosts, bypassing the allowed_hosts check. Because authentication is required, which already grants permissions to make the same requests via kernel or terminal execution, this is considered low to moderate severity.

Patches

Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?

Upgrade to 3.2.1, or apply the patch https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyter-server-proxy/compare/v3.2.0...v3.2.1.patch

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

Severity
6.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
6.9 (Medium)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.2.0"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "jupyter-server-proxy"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "3.2.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-21697"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-01-25T20:57:43Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-01-25T14:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\n\n**What kind of vulnerability is it?**  Server-Side Request Forgery ( SSRF )\n\n**Who is impacted?** Any user deploying Jupyter Server or Notebook with jupyter-proxy-server extension enabled. \n\nA lack of input validation allowed authenticated clients to proxy requests to other hosts, bypassing the `allowed_hosts` check. Because authentication is required, which already grants permissions to make the same requests via kernel or terminal execution, this is considered low to moderate severity.\n\n\n### Patches\n\n_Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?_\n\nUpgrade to 3.2.1, or apply the patch https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyter-server-proxy/compare/v3.2.0...v3.2.1.patch\n\n### For more information\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n\n* Open a topic [on our forum](https://discourse.jupyter.org)\n* Email the Jupyter security team at [security@ipython.org](mailto:security@ipython.org)\n",
  "id": "GHSA-gcv9-6737-pjqw",
  "modified": "2024-09-24T18:39:15Z",
  "published": "2022-01-27T16:24:26Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyter-server-proxy/security/advisories/GHSA-gcv9-6737-pjqw"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-21697"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyter-server-proxy/commit/fd31930bacd12188c448c886e0783529436b99eb"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyter-server-proxy"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jupyterhub/jupyter-server-proxy/compare/v3.2.0...v3.2.1.patch"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/jupyter-server-proxy/PYSEC-2022-16.yaml"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "SSRF vulnerability in jupyter-server-proxy"
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




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.

Loading timeline…




    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.