Skip to content

Sentry improper error handling leaks Application Integration Client Secret

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Nov 22, 2024 in getsentry/sentry • Updated Dec 3, 2024

Package

pip sentry (pip)

Affected versions

= 24.11.0

Patched versions

24.11.1

Description

Impact

During routine testing, we identified a scenario where a specific error message generated by our platform could include a plaintext Client ID and Client Secret for an application integration. The Client ID and Client Secret would not be displayed in the UI, but would be returned in the underlying HTTP response to the end user. This could occur under the following conditions:

  • An app installation made use of a Search UI component with the async flag set to true (default: true),
  • A user types types into the Search Component which creates a request to the third-party for search or query results, and
  • That third-party response may then fail validation and Sentry would return the select-requester.invalid-response error code along with a serialized version of a Sentry application containing the integration Client Secret.

Should this error be found, it's reasonable to assume the potential exposure of an integration Client Secret. However, an ID and Secret pair alone does not provide direct access to any data. For that secret to be abused an attacker would also need to obtain a valid API token for a Sentry application.

Impact for SaaS Users

For Sentry SaaS users, we have confirmed that only a single application integration was impacted and the owner has rotated their Client Secret. We have also confirmed that no abuse of the leaked Client Secret has occurred.

Potential Impact for Self-Hosted Users

Sentry self-hosted does not ship with any application integrations. This could only impact self-hosted users that maintain their own integrations. In that case, search for a select-requester.invalid-response event. Please note that this error was also shared with another event unrelated to this advisory so you will also need to review the parameters logged for each named event. You may review select_requester.py for the instances where these errors can be generated. With the security fix this is no longer a shared event type.

Patches

  • Sentry SaaS users do not need to take any action.
  • Sentry self-hosted users should upgrade to 24.11.1 or higher.

References

References

@geoffg-sentry geoffg-sentry published to getsentry/sentry Nov 22, 2024
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Nov 22, 2024
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Nov 22, 2024
Reviewed Nov 22, 2024
Last updated Dec 3, 2024

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

EPSS score

0.045%
(17th percentile)

Weaknesses

CVE ID

CVE-2024-53253

GHSA ID

GHSA-v5h2-q2w4-gpcx

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.