Mooty
Joined 11 years ago
Joined 11 years ago
It assumes PHP frees the upload progress data when it reloads the session. But PHP 8.4 (the one we use is 8.4.24, i don't know for other versions) calls Z_TRY_ADDREF(progress->data) to keep that data alive. The fake function call also seems to contain invalid fields.
This makes me question this particular PoC, not the official PHP security warning. I have not reproduced the exploit, so this is a concern based on reading the code, not proof that the real vulnerabilities cannot be exploited.
But anyway the CVE still exists, and the exploitation is tied to multipart, disabling it seems the best thing you can do now without shutting everything down.
It assumes PHP frees the upload progress data when it reloads the session. But PHP 8.4 (the one we use is 8.4.24, i don't know for other versions) calls Z_TRY_ADDREF(progress->data) to keep that data alive. The fake function call also seems to contain invalid fields.
This makes me question this particular PoC, not the official PHP security warning. I have not reproduced the exploit, so this is a concern based on reading the code, not proof that the real vulnerabilities cannot be exploited.
But anyway the CVE still exists, and the exploitation is tied to multipart, disabling it seems the best thing you can do now without shutting everything down.
Here is an Nginx patch : if ($http_content_type ~* "multipart") { return 403; }
You can also turn of session progress in php.ini as mentionned but that does not seem to cover every cases : session.upload_progress.enabled = Off
Here is an Nginx patch : if ($http_content_type ~* "multipart") { return 403; }
You can also turn of session progress in php.ini as mentionned but that does not seem to cover every cases : session.upload_progress.enabled = Off
Probably a good move to move on with someone else that doesn't need to get microdosis at burning man yearly to get ideas.
He is loving it right now.
I think using 3rd party API might help with latency as they won't have the same latency problem.
But this time it's for MS Teams channels, which is possible through Webhooks.
I thought that might be interesting for other persons so I share :) It can probably be adapted to any other webhooks, as soon as webhook urls accepts the JSON sent.