Apache AGE: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command
CVE-2022-45786 is a high-severity improper neutralization of special elements used in an SQL command vulnerability in Apache AGE from Apache, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.1 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected Apache AGE versions: Apache AGE for PostgreSQL 12 through 1.1.0; Apache AGE for PostgreSQL 11 through 1.1.0. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.96% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 62% of scored CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of Apache AGE you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apache | Apache AGE | Apache AGE for PostgreSQL 12 through 1.1.0; Apache AGE for PostgreSQL 11 through 1.1.0 | Not stated |
| Apache | Age | 1.1.0 and earlier | Not stated |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. 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
- HighSuccess depends on conditions outside the attacker's control.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- 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:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 3.1 | 8.1 | High | NVD |
| CVSS 3.1 | 8.1 | High | CISA (ADP) |
Official description
There are issues with the AGE drivers for Golang and Python that enable SQL injections to occur. This impacts AGE for PostgreSQL 11 & AGE for PostgreSQL 12, all versions up-to-and-including 1.1.0, when using those drivers. The fix is to update to the latest Golang and Python drivers in addition to the latest version of AGE that is used for PostgreSQL 11 or PostgreSQL 12. The update of AGE will add a new function to enable parameterization of the cypher() function, which, in conjunction with the driver updates, will resolve this issue. Background (for those who want more information): After thoroughly researching this issue, we found that due to the nature of the cypher() function, it was not easy to parameterize the values passed into it. This enabled SQL injections, if the developer of the driver wasn't careful. The developer of the Golang and Pyton drivers didn't fully utilize parameterization, likely because of this, thus enabling SQL injections. The obvious fix to this issue is to use parameterization in the drivers for all PG SQL queries. However, parameterizing all PG queries is complicated by the fact that the cypher() function call itself cannot be parameterized directly, as it isn't a real function. At least, not the parameters that would take the graph name and cypher query. The reason the cypher() function cannot have those values parameterized is because the function is a placeholder and never actually runs. The cypher() function node, created by PG in the query tree, is transformed and replaced with a query tree for the actual cypher query during the analyze phase. The problem is that parameters - that would be passed in and that the cypher() function transform needs to be resolved - are only resolved in the execution phase, which is much later. Since the transform of the cypher() function needs to know the graph name and cypher query prior to execution, they can't be passed as parameters. The fix that we are testing right now, and are proposing to use, is to create a function that will be called prior to the execution of the cypher() function transform. This new function will allow values to be passed as parameters for the graph name and cypher query. As this command will be executed prior to the cypher() function transform, its values will be resolved. These values can then be cached for the immediately following cypher() function transform to use. As added features, the cached values will store the calling session's pid, for validation. And, the cypher() function transform will clear this cached information after function invocation, regardless of whether it was used. This method will allow the parameterizing of the cypher() function indirectly and provide a way to lock out SQL injection attacks.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command
The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using persistence layers such as Hibernate or Enterprise Java Beans, which can provide significant protection against SQL injection if used properly.
- For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
More Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command vulnerabilities (CWE-89)
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Third-party and government advisories
- lists.apache.org/thread/of8x0gt5d2vfrm5ksxw55bwn2849ck1wMailing List, Third Party Advisory
Recent Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command vulnerabilities
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.