CVE-2018-6188

CVE: CVE-2018-6188
CWE: 209
ipc:
  note: |
    This feature did not deal with any inter-process communication. The change
    is only a change to the internal logic of the system, there are no separate
    processes that are talking to each other.
  answer: false
  question: |
    Did the feature that this vulnerability affected use inter-process
    communication? IPC includes OS signals, pipes, stdin/stdout, message
    passing, and clipboard. Writing to files that another program in this
    software system reads is another form of IPC.

    Answer should be boolean.
CVSS: AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
bugs: []
i18n:
  note: |
    This vulnerability did not really have anything to do with internationalization,
    it was about form logins which are not affected by internationalization.
  answer: false
  question: |
    Was the feature impacted by this vulnerability about internationalization
    (i18n)? An internationalization feature is one that enables people from all
    over the world to use the system. This includes translations, locales,
    typography, unicode, or various other features.

    Answer should be boolean. Write a note about how you came to the conclusions
    you did.
repo: 
vccs:
- note: This VCC was discovered automatically via archeogit.
  commit: ee77d4b25360a9fc050c32769a334fd69a011a63
- note: This VCC was discovered automatically via archeogit.
  commit: a1889397a9f0e6a35189de455098b4c70923e561
- note: This VCC was discovered automatically via archeogit.
  commit: 801bb146e8d4b74160c0927be184186f30194247
- note: This is the main VCC that adds a special case for inactive users
  commit: 308f64462421b09b21ef0dcd9cc3654cc25bceba
fixes:
- note: |
    Security fix for Django version 2.0.x that removes the special behavior for
    inactive users, and adds unit testing to verify the behavior is the same for
    both active and inactive users.
  commit: c37bb28677295f6edda61d8ac461014ef0d3aeb2
- note: |
    Security fix for Django version 1.11.x that removes the special behavior for
    inactive users, and adds unit testing to verify the behavior is the same for
    both active and inactive users.
  commit: 57b95fedad5e0b83fc9c81466b7d1751c6427aae
bounty:
  amt: 
  url: 
  announced: 
lessons:
  yagni:
    note: |
      This vulnerability was caused by a special case for an error message when
      an account is marked as inactive. While this might be nice to have, it ended
      up introducing a vulnerability and the fix was just to remove the special
      case. Following the yagni principle would have prevented this by encouraging
      the design to not include things that aren't necessary.
    applies: true
  question: |
    Are there any common lessons we have learned from class that apply to this
    vulnerability? In other words, could this vulnerability serve as an example
    of one of those lessons?

    Leave "applies" blank or put false if you did not see that lesson (you do
    not need to put a reason). Put "true" if you feel the lesson applies and put
    a quick explanation of how it applies.

    Don't feel the need to claim that ALL of these apply, but it's pretty likely
    that one or two of them apply.

    If you think of another lesson we covered in class that applies here, feel
    free to give it a small name and add one in the same format as these.
  serial_killer:
    note: 
    applies: 
  complex_inputs:
    note: 
    applies: 
  distrust_input:
    note: 
    applies: 
  least_privilege:
    note: |
      This vulnerability allows for an attacker to learn information about an
      account without needing to know the password for the account. This violates
      the concept of least privilege by giving them more access than they should
      have.
    applies: true
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: 
  defense_in_depth:
    note: 
    applies: 
  secure_by_default:
    note: 
    applies: 
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: 
reviews: []
sandbox: 
upvotes: 3
CWE_note: 
mistakes:
  answer: |
    I believe that the main issue that created this vulnerability was a lack of
    adequate regression testing. This piece of code did work as intended when it
    was created, but a later change ended up causing it to work differently which
    introduced the vulnerability. If this issue had been caught by a regression
    test, it could have been prevented before the code was actually released.
  question: |
    In your opinion, after all of this research, what mistakes were made that
    led to this vulnerability? Coding mistakes? Design mistakes?
    Maintainability? Requirements? Miscommunications?

    Look at the CWE entry for this vulnerability and examine the mitigations
    they have written there. Are they doing those? Does the fix look proper?

    Use those questions to inspire your answer. Don't feel obligated to answer
    every one. Write a thoughtful entry here that those ing the software
    engineering industry would find interesting.
nickname: 
subsystem:
  name: forms
  answer: |
    This took place in the forms subsystem. The files with the relevant code were
    named forms.py and test_forms.py. This code dealt with the authentication of
    the form, specifically with logging in as a user. This all takes place within
    the larger forms subsystem.
  question: |
    What subsystems was the mistake in?

    Most systems don't have a formal list of their subsystems, but you can
    usually infer them from path names, bug report tags, or other key words
    used. A single source file is not what we mean by a subsystem. In Django,
    the "Component" field on the bug report is useful. But there may be other
    subsystems involved.

    Your subsystem name(s) should not have any dots or slashes in them. Only
    alphanumerics, whitespace, _, - and @.Feel free to add multiple using a YAML
    array.

    In the answer field, explain where you saw these words.
    In the name field, a subsystem name (or an array of names)

    e.g. clipboard, model, view, controller, mod_dav, ui, authentication
discovered:
  answer: |
    The vulnerability was reported by Jack Cushman who pointed out that the
    regression allowed for sensitive data to be leaked.
  contest: false
  question: |
    How was this vulnerability discovered?

    Go to the bug report and read the conversation to find out how this was
    originally found. Answer in longform below in "answer", fill in the date in
    YYYY-MM-DD, and then determine if the vulnerability was found by a Google
    employee (you can tell from their email address). If it's clear that the
    vulenrability was discovered by a contest, fill in the name there.

    The automated, contest, and developer flags can be true, false, or nil.

    If there is no evidence as to how this vulnerability was found, then please explain where you looked.
  automated: false
  developer: false
description: |
  This vulnerability deals with the security of user data in regards to Django
  forms. Due to a regression in an earlier version, the confirm_login_allowed()
  method would run regardless of whether or not the correct password was entered
  which is not the desired functionality. While this would still throw an error,
  the contents of the error could reveal to an attacker sensitive details about
  the account. This data could include whether or not the account is marked as
  active, in addition to more sensitive data.
unit_tested:
  fix: true
  code: true
  question: |
    Were automated unit tests involved in this vulnerability?
    Was the original code unit tested, or not unit tested? Did the fix involve
    improving the automated tests?

    For code: and fix: - your answer should be boolean.

    For the code_answer below, look not only at the fix but the surrounding
    code near the fix in related directories and determine if and was there were unit tests involved for this subsystem. The code

    For the fix_answer below, check if the fix for the vulnerability involves
    adding or improving an automated test to ensure this doesn't happen again.
  fix_answer: |
    After the fix, the unit tests were updated to verify that things work correctly
    with both active and inactive users.
  code_answer: |
    There were unit tests for the functionality before the fix, but it did not
    test with inactive users.
discoverable: 
reported_date: '2018-01-23'
specification:
  answer: false
  answer_note: There is no mention of a violation of a specification.
  instructions: |
    Is there mention of a violation of a specification? For example,
    an RFC specification, a protocol specification, or a requirements
    specification.

    Be sure to check all artifacts for this: bug report, security
    advisory, commit message, etc.

    The answer field should be boolean. In answer_note, please explain
    why you come to that conclusion.
announced_date: 2018-02-05T03:29Z
curation_level: 1
published_date: '2018-02-05'
CWE_instructions: |
  Please go to http://cwe.mitre.org and find the most specific, appropriate CWE
  entry that describes your vulnerability. We recommend going to
  https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/699.html for the Software Development
  view of the vulnerabilities. We also recommend the tool
  http://www.cwevis.org/viz to help see how the classifications work.

  If you have anything to note about why you classified it this way, write
  something in CWE_note. This field is optional.

  Just the number here is fine. No need for name or CWE prefix. If more than one
  apply here, then choose the best one and mention the others in CWE_note.
yaml_instructions: |
  ===YAML Primer===
  This is a dictionary data structure, akin to JSON.
  Everything before a colon is a key, and the values here are usually strings
  For one-line strings, you can just use quotes after the colon
  For multi-line strings, as we do for our instructions, you put a | and then
  indent by two spaces

  For readability, we hard-wrap multi-line strings at 80 characters. This is
  not absolutely required, but appreciated.
bounty_instructions: |
  If you came across any indications that a bounty was paid out for this
  vulnerability, fill it out here. Or correct it if the information already here
  was wrong. Otherwise, leave it blank.
interesting_commits:
  answer: |
    I did not find any interesting commits between the most relevant VCC and
    the fix. However, the last and most relevant VCC could be considered an
    interesting commit in itself. The other VCC's mostly contain the code to set
    up the core functionality and take place around 2013. In contrast, the last
    VCC (308f644) took place in 2017 and seems to be the direct cause of the issue.
    There were no changes to this section of the code until the fix, which just
    reverts exactly what was done in the VCC.
  commits:
  - note: 
    commit: 
  question: |
    Are there any interesting commits between your VCC(s) and fix(es)?

    Write a brief (under 100 words) description of why you think this commit was
    interesting in light of the lessons learned from this vulnerability. Any
    emerging themes?
curated_instructions: |
  If you are manually editing this file, then you are "curating" it.

  Set the version number that you were given in your instructions.

  This will enable additional editorial checks on this file to make sure you
  fill everything out properly. If you are a student, we cannot accept your work
  as finished unless curated is properly updated.
upvotes_instructions: |
  For the first round, ignore this upvotes number.

  For the second round of reviewing, you will be giving a certain amount of
  upvotes to each vulnerability you see. Your peers will tell you how
  interesting they think this vulnerability is, and you'll add that to the
  upvotes score on your branch.
nickname_instructions: |
  A catchy name for this vulnerability that would draw attention it. If the
  report mentions a nickname, use that. Must be under 30 characters.
  Optional.
reported_instructions: |
  What date was the vulnerability reported to the security team? Look at the
  security bulletins and bug reports. It is not necessarily the same day that the
  CVE was created.  Leave blank if no date is given.
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
announced_instructions: |
  Was there a date that this vulnerability was announced to the world? You can
  find this in changelogs, blogs, bug reports, or perhaps the CVE date. A good
  source for this is Chrome's Stable Release Channel
  (https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/).
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
fixes_vcc_instructions: |
  Please put the commit hash in "commit" below (see my example in
  CVE-2011-3092.yml). Fixes and VCCs follow the same format.
published_instructions: |
  Is there a published fix or patch date for this vulnerability?
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
description_instructions: |
  You can get an initial description from the CVE entry on cve.mitre.org. These
  descriptions are a fine start, but they can be kind of jargony.

  Rewrite this description IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Make it interesting and easy to
  read to anyone with some programming experience. We can always pull up the NVD
  description later to get more technical.

  Try to still be specific in your description, but remove project-specific
  stuff. Remove references to versions, specific filenames, and other jargon
  that outsiders to this project would not understand. Technology like "regular
  expressions" is fine, and security phrases like "invalid write" are fine to
  keep too.

  Your target audience is people just like you before you took any course in
  security