CVE-2024-0012 : Detail

CVE-2024-0012

9.3
/
Critical
Authorization problems
A07-Identif. and Authent. Fail
97.03%V3
Network
2024-11-18
15h47 +00:00
2024-11-29
16h08 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

PAN-OS: Authentication Bypass in the Management Web Interface (PAN-SA-2024-0015)

An authentication bypass in Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS software enables an unauthenticated attacker with network access to the management web interface to gain PAN-OS administrator privileges to perform administrative actions, tamper with the configuration, or exploit other authenticated privilege escalation vulnerabilities like CVE-2024-9474 https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/CVE-2024-9474 . The risk of this issue is greatly reduced if you secure access to the management web interface by restricting access to only trusted internal IP addresses according to our recommended  best practice deployment guidelines https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/community-blogs/tips-amp-tricks-how-to-secure-the-management-access-of-your-palo/ba-p/464431 . This issue is applicable only to PAN-OS 10.2, PAN-OS 11.0, PAN-OS 11.1, and PAN-OS 11.2 software. Cloud NGFW and Prisma Access are not impacted by this vulnerability.

CVE Solutions

We strongly recommend that you secure access to your management interface following the instructions in the workarounds section below. This issue is fixed in PAN-OS 10.2.12-h2, PAN-OS 11.0.6-h1, PAN-OS 11.1.5-h1, PAN-OS 11.2.4-h1, and all later PAN-OS versions. In addition, in an attempt to provide the most seamless upgrade path for our customers, we are making fixes available for other TAC-preferred and commonly deployed maintenance releases. * Additional PAN-OS 11.2 fixes: * ​​11.2.0-h1 * 11.2.1-h1 * 11.2.2-h2 * 11.2.3-h3 * 11.2.4-h1 * Additional PAN-OS 11.1 fixes: * 11.1.0-h4 * 11.1.1-h2 * 11.1.2-h15 * 11.1.3-h11 * 11.1.4-h7 * 11.1.5-h1 * Additional PAN-OS 11.0 fixes: * 11.0.0-h4 * 11.0.1-h5 * 11.0.2-h5 * 11.0.3-h13 * 11.0.4-h6 * 11.0.5-h2 * 11.0.6-h1 * Additional PAN-OS 10.2 fixes: * 10.2.0-h4 * 10.2.1-h3 * 10.2.2-h6 * 10.2.3-h14 * 10.2.4-h32 * 10.2.5-h9 * 10.2.6-h6 * 10.2.7-h18 * 10.2.8-h15 * 10.2.9-h16 * 10.2.10-h9 * 10.2.11-h6 * 10.2.12-h2

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V4.0 9.3 CRITICAL CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:H/U:Red

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the “thing that is vulnerable”, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable system.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Network

The vulnerable system 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 exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

Attack Complexity

This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit.

Low

The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.

Attack Requirements

This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack.

None

The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

None

The attacker is unauthenticated prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the system due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System 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.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

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 Vulnerable System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted system resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; 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 Vulnerable System (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).

Sub Confidentiality Impact

Low

There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Subsequent System.

Sub Integrity Impact

None

There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Sub Availability Impact

None

There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Threat Metrics

The Threat metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability for a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the consumer analyst to customize the resulting score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of Base metrics and are assigned values based on the system placement within organizational infrastructure.

Supplemental Metrics

Supplemental metric group provides new metrics that describe and measure additional extrinsic attributes of a vulnerability. While the assessment of Supplemental metrics is provisioned by the provider, the usage and response plan of each metric within the Supplemental metric group is determined by the consumer.

Automatable

The “Automatable” metric captures the answer to the question ”Can an attacker automate exploitation events for this vulnerability across multiple targets?” based on steps 1-4 of the kill chain2 [Hutchins et al., 2011]. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation. If evaluated, the metric can take the values no or yes.

No

Attackers cannot reliably automate all 4 steps of the kill chain for this vulnerability for some reason. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation.

Recovery

Recovery describes the resilience of a system to recover services, in terms of performance and availability, after an attack has been performed.

User

The system requires manual intervention by the user to recover services, after an attack has been performed.

Value Density

Value Density describes the resources that the attacker will gain control over with a single exploitation event. It has two possible values, diffuse and concentrated:

Concentrated

The vulnerable system is rich in resources. Heuristically, such systems are often the direct responsibility of “system operators” rather than users. An example of Concentrated (think: broad) Value Density would be an attack on a central email server.

Vulnerability Response Effort

The intention of the Vulnerability Response Effort metric is to provide supplemental information on how difficult it is for consumers to provide an initial response to the impact of vulnerabilities for deployed products and services in their infrastructure.

High

The actions required to respond to a vulnerability are significant and/or difficult, and may possibly lead to an extended, scheduled service impact. This would need to be considered for scheduling purposes including honoring any embargo on deployment of the selected response. Alternatively, response to the vulnerability in the field is not possible remotely. The only resolution to the vulnerability involves physical replacement (e.g. units deployed would have to be recalled for a depot level repair or replacement). Examples include: a highly privileged driver update, microcode or UEFI BIOS updates, or software upgrades requiring careful analysis and understanding of any potential infrastructure impact before implementation. A UEFI BIOS update that impacts Trusted Platform Module (TPM) attestation without impacting disk encryption software such as Bit locker is a good recent example. Irreparable failures such as non-bootable flash subsystems, failed disks or solid-state drives (SSD), bad memory modules, network devices, or other non-recoverable under warranty hardware, should also be scored as having a High effort.

Provider Urgency

Many vendors currently provide supplemental severity ratings to consumers via product security advisories.

Red

Provider has assessed the impact of this vulnerability as having the highest urgency.

V4.0 5.9 MEDIUM CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:H/U:Red

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the “thing that is vulnerable”, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable system.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Network

The vulnerable system 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 exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

Attack Complexity

This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit.

Low

The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.

Attack Requirements

This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack.

Present

The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: A race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability. The successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker. The attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful. Network injection. The attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

High

The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the system due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

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 Vulnerable System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted system resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.

Sub Confidentiality Impact

Negligible

There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Sub Integrity Impact

None

There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Sub Availability Impact

None

There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Threat Metrics

The Threat metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability for a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the consumer analyst to customize the resulting score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of Base metrics and are assigned values based on the system placement within organizational infrastructure.

Supplemental Metrics

Supplemental metric group provides new metrics that describe and measure additional extrinsic attributes of a vulnerability. While the assessment of Supplemental metrics is provisioned by the provider, the usage and response plan of each metric within the Supplemental metric group is determined by the consumer.

Automatable

The “Automatable” metric captures the answer to the question ”Can an attacker automate exploitation events for this vulnerability across multiple targets?” based on steps 1-4 of the kill chain2 [Hutchins et al., 2011]. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation. If evaluated, the metric can take the values no or yes.

No

Attackers cannot reliably automate all 4 steps of the kill chain for this vulnerability for some reason. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation.

Recovery

Recovery describes the resilience of a system to recover services, in terms of performance and availability, after an attack has been performed.

User

The system requires manual intervention by the user to recover services, after an attack has been performed.

Value Density

Value Density describes the resources that the attacker will gain control over with a single exploitation event. It has two possible values, diffuse and concentrated:

Concentrated

The vulnerable system is rich in resources. Heuristically, such systems are often the direct responsibility of “system operators” rather than users. An example of Concentrated (think: broad) Value Density would be an attack on a central email server.

Vulnerability Response Effort

The intention of the Vulnerability Response Effort metric is to provide supplemental information on how difficult it is for consumers to provide an initial response to the impact of vulnerabilities for deployed products and services in their infrastructure.

High

The actions required to respond to a vulnerability are significant and/or difficult, and may possibly lead to an extended, scheduled service impact. This would need to be considered for scheduling purposes including honoring any embargo on deployment of the selected response. Alternatively, response to the vulnerability in the field is not possible remotely. The only resolution to the vulnerability involves physical replacement (e.g. units deployed would have to be recalled for a depot level repair or replacement). Examples include: a highly privileged driver update, microcode or UEFI BIOS updates, or software upgrades requiring careful analysis and understanding of any potential infrastructure impact before implementation. A UEFI BIOS update that impacts Trusted Platform Module (TPM) attestation without impacting disk encryption software such as Bit locker is a good recent example. Irreparable failures such as non-bootable flash subsystems, failed disks or solid-state drives (SSD), bad memory modules, network devices, or other non-recoverable under warranty hardware, should also be scored as having a High effort.

Provider Urgency

Many vendors currently provide supplemental severity ratings to consumers via product security advisories.

Red

Provider has assessed the impact of this vulnerability as having the highest urgency.

V3.1 9.8 CRITICAL CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Network

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 exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

None

The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Scope

Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

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.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

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.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

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).

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.

[email protected]

CISA KEV (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities)

Vulnerability name : Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS Management Interface Authentication Bypass Vulnerability

Required action : Apply mitigations per vendor instructions or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Additionally, management interface for affected devices should not be exposed to untrusted networks, including the internet.

Known To Be Used in Ransomware Campaigns : Unknown

Added : 2024-11-17 23h00 +00:00

Action is due : 2024-12-08 23h00 +00:00

Important information
This CVE is identified as vulnerable and poses an active threat, according to the Catalog of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (CISA KEV). The CISA has listed this vulnerability as actively exploited by cybercriminals, emphasizing the importance of taking immediate action to address this flaw. It is imperative to prioritize the update and remediation of this CVE to protect systems against potential cyberattacks.

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.

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.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version From (including) 10.2.0 To (excluding) 10.2.12

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version From (including) 11.0.0 To (excluding) 11.0.6

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version From (including) 11.1.0 To (excluding) 11.1.5

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version From (including) 11.2.0 To (excluding) 11.2.4

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.12

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.12

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 11.0.6

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 11.1.5

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 11.2.4

References