[Snyk] Fix for 13 vulnerabilities

[madchap]

This PR was automatically created by Snyk using the credentials of a real user.

Snyk has created this PR to fix one or more vulnerable packages in the `pip` dependencies of this project.

Changes included in this PR

• Changes to the following files to upgrade the vulnerable dependencies to a fixed version:
  • requirements.txt

⚠️ Warning

celery 5.3.0 requires kombu, which is not installed.

Vulnerabilities that will be fixed

By pinning:

Severity	Priority Score (*)	Issue	Upgrade	Breaking Change	Exploit Maturity
	539/1000 Why? Has a fix available, CVSS 6.5	Denial of Service (DoS) SNYK-PYTHON-CRYPTOGRAPHY-5914629	cryptography: 41.0.3 -> 42.0.0	No	No Known Exploit
	479/1000 Why? Has a fix available, CVSS 5.3	Missing Cryptographic Step SNYK-PYTHON-CRYPTOGRAPHY-6036192	cryptography: 41.0.3 -> 42.0.0	No	No Known Exploit
	479/1000 Why? Has a fix available, CVSS 5.3	Denial of Service (DoS) SNYK-PYTHON-CRYPTOGRAPHY-6050294	cryptography: 41.0.3 -> 42.0.0	No	No Known Exploit
	616/1000 Why? Proof of Concept exploit, Has a fix available, CVSS 5.9	NULL Pointer Dereference SNYK-PYTHON-CRYPTOGRAPHY-6092044	cryptography: 41.0.3 -> 42.0.0	No	Proof of Concept
	616/1000 Why? Proof of Concept exploit, Has a fix available, CVSS 5.9	Information Exposure SNYK-PYTHON-CRYPTOGRAPHY-6126975	cryptography: 41.0.3 -> 42.0.0	No	Proof of Concept
	711/1000 Why? Proof of Concept exploit, Has a fix available, CVSS 7.8	Untrusted Search Path SNYK-PYTHON-GITPYTHON-5871282	gitpython: 3.1.32 -> 3.1.41	No	Proof of Concept
	586/1000 Why? Proof of Concept exploit, Has a fix available, CVSS 5.3	Directory Traversal SNYK-PYTHON-GITPYTHON-5876644	gitpython: 3.1.32 -> 3.1.41	No	Proof of Concept
	783/1000 Why? Proof of Concept exploit, Recently disclosed, Has a fix available, CVSS 7.8	Untrusted Search Path SNYK-PYTHON-GITPYTHON-6150683	gitpython: 3.1.32 -> 3.1.41	No	Proof of Concept
	909/1000 Why? Mature exploit, Has a fix available, CVSS 9.6	Heap-based Buffer Overflow SNYK-PYTHON-PILLOW-5918878	pillow: 9.5.0 -> 10.2.0	No	Mature
	589/1000 Why? Has a fix available, CVSS 7.5	Uncontrolled Resource Consumption ('Resource Exhaustion') SNYK-PYTHON-PILLOW-6043904	pillow: 9.5.0 -> 10.2.0	No	No Known Exploit
	798/1000 Why? Proof of Concept exploit, Recently disclosed, Has a fix available, CVSS 8.1	Eval Injection SNYK-PYTHON-PILLOW-6182918	pillow: 9.5.0 -> 10.2.0	No	Proof of Concept
	509/1000 Why? Has a fix available, CVSS 5.9	Information Exposure Through Sent Data SNYK-PYTHON-URLLIB3-5926907	urllib3: 1.26.11 -> 1.26.18	No	No Known Exploit
	424/1000 Why? Has a fix available, CVSS 4.2	Information Exposure Through Sent Data SNYK-PYTHON-URLLIB3-6002459	urllib3: 1.26.11 -> 1.26.18	No	No Known Exploit

(*) Note that the real score may have changed since the PR was raised.

Some vulnerabilities couldn't be fully fixed and so Snyk will still find them when the project is tested again. This may be because the vulnerability existed within more than one direct dependency, but not all of the affected dependencies could be upgraded.

Check the changes in this PR to ensure they won't cause issues with your project.

---

Note: You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized Snyk to open fix PRs.

For more information:
🧐 View latest project report

🛠 Adjust project settings

📚 Read more about Snyk's upgrade and patch logic

---

Learn how to fix vulnerabilities with free interactive lessons:

🦉 Denial of Service (DoS)
🦉 NULL Pointer Dereference
🦉 Directory Traversal
🦉 More lessons are available in Snyk Learn

[secureflag-knowledge-base]

Unrestricted File Download

Play Labs on this vulnerability with SecureFlag!

Description

Unrestricted File Downloads are a type of vulnerability that allow a malicious actor to download internal files, resulting in the potential, unintentional exposure of sensitive files, such as the configuration file, which contains credentials for the database. In milder forms, Unrestricted File Download attacks allow access to a specific directory subtree but could still enable cross-user breaches or access to crucial configuration and sensitive files.

Read more

Impact

The damage an attacker can cause by employing this type of attack is really only limited by the value of the exposed information. If a developer has structured their web root folder to include sensitive configuration files, for example, the fallout will, of course, be highly damaging. Furthermore, as with many other attacks that are a part of the attacker's toolkit, the vulnerability can be used by an attacker as a stepping stone, leading to the full compromise of the system.

Scenarios

A classic scenario is a web application that dynamically fetches resources according to a query parameter; and the available resources are stored in a particular directory within the file systems. For example, the following URL fetches the /opt/wwwdata/assets/some-file file and uses it to build the web page, possibly returning it verbatim:

http://www.vulnerableapp.com/?pageId=some-file

The Directory Traversal technique is commonly used to exploit this type of vulnerability in file systems; the nickname "dot-dot-slash" is often used as an alternative label given the punctuated order of symbols (../ and ..\) that allow access to unintended resources of the server's file system.

If no checks or sanitisation are in place, it is possible to traverse the resources directory and target any file on the file system. For example, the following fetches the sensitive /etc/passwd file on Linux and other unix-derived systems:

http://www.vulnerableapp.com/?pageId=../../../../../etc/passwd

Prevention

If possible, developers should avoid building file path strings with user-provided input. Many functions of an application can be rewritten to deliver functionally identical behavior but in a safer manner.

If passing user-supplied input to a filesystem API is absolutely necessary, developers must ensure the following:

• Validate the user input by strictly accepting well-known, reputable candidates against an allow list
• If validating against an allow list isn't possible, validation should at least ensure that only permitted content is contained in the input

As defense in depth, developers should never run a server component with root or SYSTEM privileges, as this can enable access to any file or folder, including crypto keys and the registry, to a malicious actor exploiting this vulnerability. Server components should be run using a less-privileged user with no access to critical system files.

Testing

Verify that user-submitted filename metadata is not used directly by system or framework filesystems and that a URL API is used to protect against path traversal.

• OWASP ASVS: 12.3.1
• OWASP Testing Guide: Testing for Local File Inclusion, Testing Directory Traversal File Include

View this in the SecureFlag Knowledge Base