Skip to content

PrivateBin allows shortening of URLs for other domains

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 9, 2024 in PrivateBin/PrivateBin • Updated Aug 1, 2024

Package

composer privatebin/privatebin (Composer)

Affected versions

>= 1.5.0, < 1.7.4

Patched versions

1.7.4

Description

In v1.5 we introduced the YOURLS server-side proxy. The idea was to allow using the YOURLs URL shortener without running the YOURLs instance without authentication and/or exposing the authentication token to the public, allowing anyone to shorten any URL. With the proxy mechanism, anyone can shorten any URL pointing to the configured PrivateBin instance. The vulnerability allowed other URLs to be shortened, as long as they contain the PrivateBin instance, defeating the limit imposed by the proxy.

Neither the confidentially of existing pastes on the server nor the configuration options including the YOURLs token are affected.

Impact

This issue only affects non-standard configurations of PrivateBin. Instances are affected if all of the following conditions are met:

  1. The PrivateBin instance enables URL shortening.
  2. A YOURLs URL shortener is used and it is configured not to be public and require authentication to shorten URLs.
  3. A basepath, the YOURLs proxy mechanism and an authentication token is configured in PrivateBin to use the non-public YOURLs instance.
  4. A crafted URL is sent to PrivateBins' YOURLs proxy endpoint with a URL that contains the PrivateBin instance URL as a GET-parameter or as part of the URL-fragment, but doesn't start with the instance URL (a third-party URL)

The root cause is, that the guard clause checking whether the URL to be shortened belongs to your own PrivateBin domain only checks if the PrivateBin instance is contained in the URL but not if it starts with it.

This is a kind of authentication bypass due to incomplete filtering. This has a similar impact like an open redirect except it does not directly redirect, but allows a further hiding of the target URL as is common and known for URL shorteners. If the URL shortener domain used is trusted by it's users, this allows hiding a malicious URL.

The highest impact may be that this can be used for phishing campaigns, by routing users to some kind of fake site mimicking the trusted shortener or PrivateBin domain, which could then extract sensitive data from entered data or similar. That said, this is a general concern with URL shorteners and users are advised to follow general phishing prevention attempts like verifying the domain of the site they are using and using a trusted PrivateBin instance.

Indicators of exploitation

Check your YOURLs proxy for shortened domains that do not start with your own PrivateBin instance. Also note, that for this to be a result of an exploitation of this vulnerability, somewhere in the URL the base path + ? e.g. https://privatebin.example/? has to appear in the destination URL, as this is what the guard checked for.

Patches

The problem has been patched in version 1.7.4 of PrivateBin. In addition to upgrading, users of the YOURLs proxy feature should check for the indicators of exploitation, as outlined above.

Workarounds

  • Disable URL shortening, if you have been using it.
  • Only the YOURLs proxy is affected. Other URL shortening options either require a public, un-authenticated shortener, or expose the token to the client, which by design allows shortening any URL.

Proof of concept

See the unit test that got introduced to prevent similar regressions for an example of a URL that would circumvent the configured basepath.

Here is an example of how a manual exploitation would work:

In a PrivateBin instance hosted on https://privatebin.example/, with a valid URL YOURLs shortening proxy configuration using a token to prevent un-authenticated short-URL creation, send a URL shortening request for the domain https://attacker.example.com/?q=https://privatebin.example/?foo#bar. attacker.example.com is any attacker controlled, arbitrary domain.

You can do this by sending a GET request to https://privatebin.example/shortenviayourls?link=https%3A%2F%2Fattacker.example.com%2F%3Fq%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fprivatebin.example%2F%3Ffoo%23bar, without URL encoding this looks as follows: https://privatebin.example/shortenviayourls?link=https://attacker.example.com/?q=https://privatebin.example/?foo#bar.

On an affected setup, you will get a valid short URL, which when accessed, leads to https://attacker.example.com/?foo#bar, the attackers domain. On a patched system your request will get rejected and only URLs starting with https://privatebin.example/?[...] are allowed for shortening.

Post-mortem

From our limited analysis, the issue has been introduced in commit 0dc9ab7 while refactoring. The use of substr got replaced by strpos. The initial contribution contained no tests, but an implementation without this flaw. All these changes got introduced in a single pull request. This follows many best practices, as tests were added and the refactoring was done in close collaboration with the original author.

In the future, we plan to switch to the more obvious, readable and understandable str_starts_with, which is available since PHP v8. Such a better function naming and insisting on using modern functions would not only result in a better code quality, but would possibly have prevented the issue, but for backwards-compatibility with PHP 7.3, we stay on the old function for now.

Final Thoughts

The project maintainers have always discouraged the use of URL shorteners and users are always safer sharing the complete, long URL to a paste, see our FAQ.

If you need or want to provide a URL shortener option as a PrivateBin instance administrator, YOURLs is the best option available to use with PrivateBin, because it is the only shortener supported, through the proxy mechanism, preventing arbitrarily shortening any URLs. Running a public URL shortener instance and allowing anonymous users shortening arbitrary domains invites the shortener getting abused.

References

Timeline

  • 2024-06-28 Issue report by @nbxiglk via email
  • 2024-06-29 Vulnerability reproduced by @elrido, mitigation created and shared with maintainers and issue reporter for review
  • 2024-07-06 Pull request with mitigation raised

References

@elrido elrido published to PrivateBin/PrivateBin Jul 9, 2024
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jul 9, 2024
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 10, 2024
Reviewed Jul 10, 2024
Last updated Aug 1, 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 None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity Low
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
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:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

0.045%
(16th percentile)

CVE ID

CVE-2024-39899

GHSA ID

GHSA-mqqj-fx8h-437j

Source code

Credits

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