CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2024-28848NVD status: Analyzed

OpenMetadata: Improper Control of Generation of Code

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2024-28848 is a high-severity improper control of generation of code vulnerability in OpenMetadata from Open-metadata, 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 OpenMetadata versions: < 1.2.4. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 7.89% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is in the top 5.2% of all scored CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Update openmetadata to 1.2.4 or a later version.
  2. Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
Open-metadataOpenMetadata< 1.2.4Not stated
Openmetadataopenmetadatabefore 1.2.41.2.4

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
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 CNA (github.com).

Official description

OpenMetadata is a unified platform for discovery, observability, and governance powered by a central metadata repository, in-depth lineage, and seamless team collaboration. The `‎CompiledRule::validateExpression` method evaluates an SpEL expression using an `StandardEvaluationContext`, allowing the expression to reach and interact with Java classes such as `java.lang.Runtime`, leading to Remote Code Execution. The `/api/v1/policies/validation/condition/<expression>` endpoint passes user-controlled data `CompiledRule::validateExpession` allowing authenticated (non-admin) users to execute arbitrary system commands on the underlaying operating system. In addition, there is a missing authorization check since `Authorizer.authorize()` is never called in the affected path and therefore any authenticated non-admin user is able to trigger this endpoint and evaluate arbitrary SpEL expressions leading to arbitrary command execution. This vulnerability was discovered with the help of CodeQL's Expression language injection (Spring) query and is also tracked as `GHSL-2023-236`. This issue may lead to Remote Code Execution and has been resolved in version 1.2.4. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.

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: poc, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Other vulnerabilities in OpenMetadata

All OpenMetadata vulnerabilities

Recent Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.