CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2022-30331NVD status: Modified

The User-Defined Functions (UDF) feature in TigerGraph 3.6.0 allows installation of a query…

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2022-30331 is a high-severity improper input validation vulnerability in Tigergraph, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.8 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. Affected Tigergraph versions: 3.6.0. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 1.12% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 67% of scored CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Check which version of Tigergraph you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
  2. Read the advisory on docs.tigergraph.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
TigergraphTigergraph3.6.0Not stated

Version data comes from NVD's product matching. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.

How the severity score breaks down

Attack vector
NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
Attack complexity
LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
Privileges required
LowA basic user account is enough.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
Confidentiality
HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
Integrity
HighData or code can be modified at will.
Availability
HighThe component can be taken down completely.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.

Official description

The User-Defined Functions (UDF) feature in TigerGraph 3.6.0 allows installation of a query (in the GSQL query language) without proper validation. Consequently, an attacker can execute arbitrary C++ code. NOTE: the vendor's position is "GSQL was behaving as expected."

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
  • Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.

More Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities (CWE-20)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Third-party and government advisories

Other vulnerabilities in Tigergraph

All Tigergraph vulnerabilities

Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.