CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2023-37470NVD status: Modified

metabase: Improper Control of Generation of Code

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2023-37470 is a critical-severity improper control of generation of code vulnerability in metabase, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected metabase versions: < 0.43.7.3; >= 0.44.0.0, < 0.44.7.3; >= 0.45.0.0, < 0.45.4.3, and others listed below. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 1.35% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 72% of scored CVEs.

Patch this week

Critical severity: a successful attack would have severe impact.

What to do

  1. Check which version of metabase you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
  2. Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
  3. Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
Metabasemetabase< 0.43.7.3; >= 0.44.0.0, < 0.44.7.3; >= 0.45.0.0, < 0.45.4.3; >= 0.46.0.0, < 0.46.6.4; >= 1.0.0, < 1.43.7.3; >= 1.44.0.0, < 1.44.7.3; >= 1.45.0.0, < 1.45.4.3; >= 1.46.0.0, < 1.46.6.4Not 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
LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
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:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.

Scoring systemScoreSeverityScored by
CVSS 3.110.0CriticalCNA (github.com)
CVSS 3.19.8CriticalNVD

Official description

Metabase is an open-source business intelligence and analytics platform. Prior to versions 0.43.7.3, 0.44.7.3, 0.45.4.3, 0.46.6.4, 1.43.7.3, 1.44.7.3, 1.45.4.3, and 1.46.6.4, a vulnerability could potentially allow remote code execution on one's Metabase server. The core issue is that one of the supported data warehouses (an embedded in-memory database H2), exposes a number of ways for a connection string to include code that is then executed by the process running the embedded database. Because Metabase allows users to connect to databases, this means that a user supplied string can be used to inject executable code. Metabase allows users to validate their connection string before adding a database (including on setup), and this validation API was the primary vector used as it can be called without validation. Versions 0.43.7.3, 0.44.7.3, 0.45.4.3, 0.46.6.4, 1.43.7.3, 1.44.7.3, 1.45.4.3, and 1.46.6.4 fix this issue by removing the ability of users to add H2 databases entirely. As a workaround, it is possible to block these vulnerabilities at the network level by blocking the endpoints `POST /api/database`, `PUT /api/database/:id`, and `POST /api/setup/validateuntil`. Those who use H2 as a file-based database should migrate to SQLite.

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

The underlying weakness: Improper Control of Generation of Code

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
  • Run your code in a jail or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.

More Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities (CWE-94)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: yes, technical impact: total).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Other vulnerabilities in metabase

All metabase vulnerabilities

Recent Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.