GSD-2020-26877
Vulnerability from gsd - Updated: 2023-12-13 01:22Details
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.
Aliases
Aliases
{
"GSD": {
"alias": "CVE-2020-26877",
"description": "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.",
"id": "GSD-2020-26877"
},
"gsd": {
"metadata": {
"exploitCode": "unknown",
"remediation": "unknown",
"reportConfidence": "confirmed",
"type": "vulnerability"
},
"osvSchema": {
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-26877"
],
"details": "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.",
"id": "GSD-2020-26877",
"modified": "2023-12-13T01:22:09.094096Z",
"schema_version": "1.4.0"
}
},
"namespaces": {
"cve.org": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
"ID": "CVE-2020-26877",
"STATE": "PUBLIC"
},
"affects": {
"vendor": {
"vendor_data": [
{
"product": {
"product_data": [
{
"product_name": "n/a",
"version": {
"version_data": [
{
"version_value": "n/a"
}
]
}
}
]
},
"vendor_name": "n/a"
}
]
}
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"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."
}
]
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "n/a"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-3.1.2.3",
"refsource": "MISC",
"url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-3.1.2.3"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/apifest/apifest-oauth20",
"refsource": "MISC",
"url": "https://github.com/apifest/apifest-oauth20"
},
{
"name": "http://www.apifest.org/index.html",
"refsource": "MISC",
"url": "http://www.apifest.org/index.html"
}
]
}
},
"nvd.nist.gov": {
"configurations": {
"CVE_data_version": "4.0",
"nodes": [
{
"children": [],
"cpe_match": [
{
"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:apifest:oauth_2.0_server:0.3.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe_name": [],
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"operator": "OR"
}
]
},
"cve": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
"ID": "CVE-2020-26877"
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"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."
}
]
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-601"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "http://www.apifest.org/index.html",
"refsource": "MISC",
"tags": [
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "http://www.apifest.org/index.html"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/apifest/apifest-oauth20",
"refsource": "MISC",
"tags": [
"Third Party Advisory"
],
"url": "https://github.com/apifest/apifest-oauth20"
},
{
"name": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-3.1.2.3",
"refsource": "MISC",
"tags": [
"Third Party Advisory"
],
"url": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-3.1.2.3"
}
]
}
},
"impact": {
"baseMetricV2": {
"acInsufInfo": false,
"cvssV2": {
"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,
"severity": "MEDIUM",
"userInteractionRequired": true
},
"baseMetricV3": {
"cvssV3": {
"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
}
},
"lastModifiedDate": "2022-07-08T16:21Z",
"publishedDate": "2022-06-29T14:15Z"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
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.
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
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.
Loading…