Refit
The automatic type-safe REST library for .NET. Refit turns a REST API into a C# interface and generates the HttpClient implementation, with support for HttpClientFactory, pluggable serializers and a testing package.
View on Github
Activity
- Latest release
- 1w ago
- Total releases
- 86
- Cadence
- ~6 days
- Last 12 months
- 27
Reach
- Stars
- 9.6k
Details
- License
- MIT
- First release
- Jul 30, 2013
| Version | Released | |
|---|---|---|
16.4.0
minor
| ||
16.3.0
minor
| ||
16.2.0
minor
| ||
16.1.0
minor
| ||
16.0.0
major
| ||
15.2.0
minor
| ||
15.1.0
minor
| ||
15.0.0
major
| ||
15.0.0-beta.1
pre
| ||
14.0.1
patch
| ||
14.0.0
major
| ||
14.0.0-beta.5
pre
| ||
14.0.0-beta.4
pre
| ||
14.0.0-beta.3
pre
| ||
14.0.0-beta.2
pre
| ||
14.0.0-beta.1
pre
| ||
13.1.0
minor
| ||
13.0.0
major
| ||
12.1.0
minor
| ||
12.0.0
major
| ||
11.2.0
minor
| ||
11.1.0
minor
| ||
11.0.1
patch
| ||
11.0.0
major
| ||
10.2.0
minor
| ||
10.0.1
major
| ||
9.0.2
major
| ||
7.2.22
patch
| ||
8.0.0
major
| ||
7.2.1
patch
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
7.2.0
minor
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
7.1.2
minor
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
7.0.0
major
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
6.3.2
minor
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
6.2.16
minor
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
6.1.15
minor
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
6.0.94
patch
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
6.0.38
patch
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
6.0.24
patch
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
6.0.21
patch
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
6.0.15
patch
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
6.0.8
patch
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
6.0.1
major
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
6.0.0-preview.128
pre
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
6.0.0-preview.96
pre
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
5.2.4
patch
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
6.0.0-preview.37
pre
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
5.2.1
minor
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
5.1.67
patch
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev | ||
5.1.54
patch
1 CVE
CVE-2024-51501
GHSA-3hxg-fxwm-8gf7
Nov 04, 2024
CRLF injection in Refit's [Header], [HeaderCollection] and [Authorize] attributes
Critical
Network
Low
None
None
SummaryThe various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. DetailsThe way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. PoCThe below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF): The application intends to send a single request of the form: But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: and This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with ImpactIf an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit, not in Refit itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the Refit documentation. Affected versions
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.2.0
1.3.0
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.1.0
2.2.0
2.2.1
2.3.0
2.4.0
+ 52 more Show less
2.4.1
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.1.0
4.0.0
4.0.1
4.1.0
4.2.0
4.3.0
4.4.17
4.5.4
4.5.6
4.6.107
4.6.15
4.6.16
4.6.30
4.6.48
4.6.58
4.6.85
4.6.90
4.6.99
4.7.5
4.7.51
4.7.9
4.8.14
5.0.15
5.0.23
5.1.26
5.1.27
5.1.54
5.1.67
5.2.1
5.2.4
6.0.1
6.0.15
6.0.21
6.0.24
6.0.38
6.0.8
6.0.94
6.1.15
6.2.14
6.2.16
6.3.2
6.4.1
6.5.1
7.0.0
7.1.0
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2.0
7.2.1
Fixed in
7.2.22
References
Updated Nov 08, 2024 · Source: OSV.dev |