## Unethically disclosed vulnerabilities in Pepperminty Wiki: My perspective

Recently, I've made a new release of my PHP-based wiki engine Pepperminty Wiki - v0.23. This would not normally be notable, but as it turns out there were a number of security issues (the severity of which varies) that needed fixing. I fixed them of course, but the manner in which they were disclosed to me was less than ethical.

In this post, I want to explain what happened from my perspective, and why I'm rather frustrated with the way the reporter handled things.

It all started with issue #222 that was opened by @hmaverickadams. In that issue, they say that they have discovered a number of vulnerabilities:

Hi,

I am a penetration tester and discovered a couple of vulnerabilities within your application. I will be applying for CVE status on the findings, but would like to work with you on the issues if possible. I could not locate an email, so please feel free to shoot me your contact info if possible.

Thank you!

So far, so good! Seems responsible, right? It did to me too. For reference, CVE there refers to the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures, a website that tracks vulnerabilities in software from across the globe.

I would have left it at that, but I decided to check out the GitHub projects that @hmaverickadams (henceforth "the reporter") had. To my surprise, I found these public GitHub repositories:

These appeared to be created just 1 day after the issue #222 was opened against Pepperminty Wiki. I was on holiday at the time (3 weeks; and I've haven't been checking my GitHub notifications as often as I perhaps should), so it took me 22 days to get to it. Generally speaking I would consider a minimum of 90 days with no response before publishing a vulnerability publicly like that - this is the core of the matter, but more on this later. Here are links these vulnerabilites on the CVE website:

You may also ask yourself "what were the vulnerabilities in question in the first place?" - glad you asked! Let's take a look.

## CVE-2021-38600

Described officially as a "a stored Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability", this essentially that you can convince Pepperminty Wiki to store some arbitrary HTML (which may contain a malicious script for example) and later serve it to some poor unsuspecting visitors.

In this particular vulnerability, the reporter found that when filling out the initial setup web form that appears the first time you load Pepperminty Wiki up with a wiki name that contains arbitrary HTML, Pepperminty Wiki will blindly serve this to users.

It sounds like a big issue, but once you realise that to fill out the first run web form you need the site secret - which is generated randomly and stored in peppermint.json, which itself has a check to ensure it can't be loaded through the web server, you realise that this isn't actually a big deal. In fact, Pepperminty Wiki has a number of settings that by design allow one to serve arbitrary HTML:

All of these can be modified either by a moderator in the site settings page, or through peppermint.json directly.

...so personally I don't class this as a vulnerability. Regardless, I've fixed this by running the wiki name through htmlentities() - but in doing so I speculate that some special characters (e.g. quotes) will no longer display properly because of how I fixed CVE-2021-38600 (see below) - I'll continue working on this.

## CVE-2021-38601

This vulnerability is described as "a reflected Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability". This is similar to CVE-2021-38600, but instead of storing a value the attack makes use of various GET parameters. There are (were, since I've fixed it) examples of GET parameters that caused this issue, including action (sets the subcommand/action that should be taken - e.g. view, edit, etc) and page (the current page on the wiki you're looking at).

Unlike CVE-2021-38600, this is a more serious vulnerability. Someone could generate a malicious link to a Pepperminty Wiki instance that instead redirects you to an attacker-controller website (i.e. by using location.href = "blah").

Fixing it though required me to do a comprehensive review of every single line of Pepperminty Wiki's codebase, which took me multiple hours of intense programming and was really rather unpleasant. The description by the reporter in the repo was quite unhelpful:

A reflected Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists on multiple parameters in version 0.23-dev of the Pepperminty-Wiki application that allows for arbitrary execution of JavaScript commands.

Affected page: http://localhost/index.php

Sample payload: https://localhost/index.php?action=<script>alert(1)</script>

CVE: https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-38601

I discovered in my comprehensive review that action and page were not the only parameters affected - I fixed every instance I could find.

## Reaching out

To try and understand their side of the story and gain additional insight into the vulnerabilities they discovered, I attempted to reach out to them. First, I tried opening an issue on the above GitHub repositories they created.

Instead of replying to the issues though, the reporter instead deleted the issues I opened, and set it so that nobody could opened issues on the repositories anymore! As of the time of typing I still do not have a response from the reporter about this.

Not to be deterred, I found a pair of twitter accounts they controlled and tweeted at them:

As you can probably guess, I haven't had a response yet (though I will of course update this blog post if I do). To make absolutely sure that I got through, I also filled out the contact form on their website - also to no avail so far.

With all this in mind, I get the impression the reporter does not want to talk to me - especially since they deleted the issues I opened against their repositories instead of replying to them. This is frustrating, because I was put in a really awkward position of having to deal with a zero day vulnerability as fast as I could after they publicly disclosed the vulnerabilities (worse still, I could tell that those repositories had some significant traffic since they have been starred by 7 + 4 people as of the time of typing).

## Can't find an email address?

After this (and in between comprehensively reviewing Pepperminty Wiki's codebase), I also re-read the initial issue. When re-reading it, a particular sentence also struck me as odd:

I could not locate an email, so please feel free to shoot me your contact info if possible.

This is very strange, since I have the following paragraph in Pepperminty Wiki's README:

If you've found a security issue, please don't open an issue. Instead, get in touch privately - e.g. via Keybase or by email (security [at sign] starbeamrainbowlabs [replace me with a dot] com), and I'll try to respond ASAP.

I also have my website and email address on my GitHub profile, and my website lists:

• My Keybase details
• My Stack Exchange account
• My reddit account
• My GPG/PGP key id

I don't have my Discord account on there, but I can chat over that too after first using one of the above.

With this in mind, I found it to be very strange that the reporter was unable to find a means of contact to use to responsibly disclose the vulnerabilities.

## CVE confusion

Now that I've fixed the vulnerabilities, I'm somewhat confused above how I update the pair of CVEs. This website gives the following instructions:

1. Identify the CNA that published the CVE Record by searching for the CVE Record on the CVE List.
2. Locate the responsible CNA in the “Assigning CNA” field of the CVE Record.
3. Contact the CNA using their preferred contact method to request the update.

In my case, the assigning CNA is stated as "N/A" - I assume it's the unresponsive reporter above. I'm confused here then about how I'm supposed to update the the CVE, since I can't contract the original reporter.

If anyone can suggest a way in which I can update these CVEs to reflect what has happened and the fact that I've fixed them, I'd love to know - I would hate to leave those CVEs outdated as they may misinform someone. Contact details on my website homepage. You can also leave a comment on this blog post.

## Conclusion

I'm upset not because the reporter found a vulnerability - it's great they even took the time to find it in the first place in my little small-time project! I'm upset because they failed to properly disclose the vulnerabilities by privately contacting me. In fact, they would have discovered that CVE-2021-38600 is not really a vulnerability at all.

I'm also upset because despite the effort I've gone to in order to reach out, instead of opening a civil and polite discussion about the whole issue I've instead been met with doors slammed in my face (i.e. issues deleted instead of being replied to).

I wanted to document my experiences here also to educate others about ethical vulnerability / security issue / disclosure. Ethics, justice, and honesty are really important to me - and I'd like to try and avoid any accidental disclosures if at all possible.

If you find a vulnerability in someone's code (be it open or closed source), I would advise you to:

1. Go in search of a security vulnerability disclosure policy (or, for open-source projects, search the README / find the contact details for the maintainers)
2. Contact the authors of the code (or company, if commercial) to organise responsible disclosure
3. When a patch has been written and tested, co-ordinate the release of the patch and the disclosure of the vulnerability

Please do not release the vulnerability publicly without first contacting the author (I suggest waiting 60 days and trying multiple methods of communication). This causes maintainers of projects (who in the case of open source are mostly volunteers who pour their time into projects without asking for anything in return) a lot of stress and anxiety, as I've discovered during this incident.

Given that I haven't experienced anything like this before and that I'm only human I'm sure that my response to this incident could use some work - but the manner in which these vulnerabilities were disclosed could use a lot of work too.