Based on Ubuntu security rating.
The probability is the direct output of the EPSS model, and conveys an overall sense of the threat of exploitation in the wild. The percentile measures the EPSS probability relative to all known EPSS scores. Note: This data is updated daily, relying on the latest available EPSS model version. Check out the EPSSdocumentation for more details.
In a few clicks we can analyze your entire application and see what components are vulnerable in your application, and suggest you quick fixes.
Test your applicationsUpgradeUbuntu:20.04
restrictedpython
to version 4.0b3-2ubuntu0.1esm1 or higher.
Note:Versions mentioned in the description apply only to the upstreamrestrictedpython
package and not therestrictedpython
package as distributed byUbuntu
.SeeHow to fix?
forUbuntu:20.04
relevant fixed versions and status.
RestrictedPython is a tool that helps to define a subset of the Python language which allows users to provide a program input into a trusted environment. RestrictedPython does not check access to stack frames and their attributes. Stack frames are accessible within at least generators and generator expressions, which are allowed inside RestrictedPython. Prior to versions 6.1 and 5.3, an attacker with access to a RestrictedPython environment can write code that gets the current stack frame in a generator and then walk the stack all the way beyond the RestrictedPython invocation boundary, thus breaking out of the restricted sandbox and potentially allowing arbitrary code execution in the Python interpreter. All RestrictedPython deployments that allow untrusted users to write Python code in the RestrictedPython environment are at risk. In terms of Zope and Plone, this would mean deployments where the administrator allows untrusted users to create and/or edit objects of typeScript (Python)
,DTML Method
,DTML Document
orZope Page Template
. This is a non-default configuration and likely to be extremely rare. The problem has been fixed in versions 6.1 and 5.3.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitableat the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.
An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).