Insufficient session expiration in Apache Wicket.
org.apache.wicket.protocol.ws.WebSocketSettings#newWebSocketRequest() wraps the WebSocket upgrade request in an org.apache.wicket.protocol.ws.api.ServletRequestCopy, which is kept for the life of the connection and used to build the request for every frame that arrives on it. Copying the request is deliberate and is documented as such, because the container recycles the upgrade request once the handshake is over. The container session is copied along with it, into an org.apache.wicket.protocol.ws.api.HttpSessionCopy holding the session attributes as they stood when the connection was opened. That second copy is not necessary, because a session, unlike a request, is not discarded at the end of a request. Every frame afterwards resolves its Wicket session through ISessionStore#lookup(), which reads it out of the copy, so the connection is detached from the live container session for as long as it stays open.
Ending the session through the container therefore does not end the connection. After an idle timeout, an HttpSession#invalidate() call made from a filter or from a security framework, a container-managed logout, or a session replacement, the connection goes on resolving the org.apache.wicket.Session instance that existed when it was opened, together with that session's attributes and, for applications built on wicket-auth-roles, the signed-in state held on that same instance, so an authorization decision taken inside a WebSocket callback is taken against an identity that has already been revoked. The copy is also what the connection writes through: a Session#invalidateNow() issued from inside a WebSocket callback invalidates the copy and leaves the container session valid, and session attributes set over the connection are written to the copy rather than to the session.
An application is affected where it uses Wicket's native WebSocket support on pages or shared resources that require an authenticated session, and where sessions are ended by the container rather than by Wicket. Session#invalidateNow(), and AuthenticatedWebSession#invalidate() and #signOut() which call it, remain effective for a WebSocketBehavior on a page: they clear the page manager, and the connection can then no longer resolve the page it was opened for. A WebSocketResource is not limited in that way, because a frame naming a resource is served against a throwaway page and never consults the page manager, so such a connection outlives Wicket's own sign-out as well. Some containers close WebSocket connections themselves when the HTTP session they were opened under is destroyed, in which case the connection ends regardless; that is a property of the container rather than of Wicket. Applications that do not use the native WebSocket support are not affected.
This issue affects Apache Wicket: from 8.0.0 through 8.19.0, from 9.0.0 through 9.24.0, from 10.0.0 through 10.11.0. Older, unsupported releases from 6.0.0 onwards are also affected. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 8.20.0, 9.25.0 or 10.12.0, which fix the issue.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (2.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 2.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 2.3 LOWCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact partial (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact neither High). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact partial (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact neither High). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it