Skip to content

Ability to change order address without triggering address validations in solidus

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 31, 2020 in solidusio/solidus • Updated May 4, 2023

Package

bundler solidus_api (RubyGems)

Affected versions

< 2.8.6
>= 2.9.0, < 2.9.6
>= 2.10.0, < 2.10.2

Patched versions

2.8.6
2.9.6
2.10.2
bundler solidus_frontend (RubyGems)
< 2.8.6
>= 2.9.0, < 2.9.6
>= 2.10.0, < 2.10.2
2.8.6
2.9.6
2.10.2

Description

Impact

This vulnerability allows a malicious customer to craft request data with parameters that allow changing the address of the current order without changing the shipment costs associated with the new shipment.

All stores with at least two shipping zones and different costs of shipment per zone are impacted.

E.g.

  1. Store admin configured the store so that there are two zones in US:
  • East Cost Zone - Shipping Method cost: $1
  • West Cost Zone - Shipping Method cost: $10

The attacker user can know that shipping to NY is less expensive than to LA just by testing different addresses in checkout.

  1. The attacker user enters any NY shipping address in the address step
  2. The attacker user chooses the $1 delivery option
  3. The attacker user crafts a request with their real LA address, similar to:
// POST #checkout/update:

{
  state: 'payment',
  order: {
    ship_address_attributes: {
      city: 'Los Angeles',
      ...
    }
  }
}
  1. The attacker user proceeds with checking out with a new address and the $1 shipment costs.

Another scenario where this could be dangerous is:

You cannot ship products in some zones and you are relying on Solidus Shipping Method building only to filter out unwanted zones. Malicious users can enter an allowed zone's address and change back to an unwanted one in the payment step by crafting a request with some proper ship_address_attributes.

This problem comes from how checkout permitted attributes are structured. We have a single list of attributes that are permitted across the whole checkout, no matter the step that is being submitted.

Patches

A PR has been attached to fix the security concern for each of all the Solidus supported versions following the rules of the Solidus Security Policy.

Workarounds

When it's not possible to upgrade to a supported patched version, please use this gist to patch the store:

https://gist.github.com/kennyadsl/4618cd9797984cb64f7700a81bda889d

References

@kennyadsl kennyadsl published to solidusio/solidus Jul 31, 2020
Reviewed Aug 4, 2020
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Aug 4, 2020
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Aug 4, 2020
Last updated May 4, 2023

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

EPSS score

0.090%
(40th percentile)

CVE ID

CVE-2020-15109

GHSA ID

GHSA-3mvg-rrrw-m7ph

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.