CVE-2019-10092 : Détail

CVE-2019-10092

6.1
/
Moyen
Cross-site Scripting
A03-Injection
4.66%V3
Network
2019-09-26
12h07 +00:00
2021-06-06
08h11 +00:00
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

In Apache HTTP Server 2.4.0-2.4.39, a limited cross-site scripting issue was reported affecting the mod_proxy error page. An attacker could cause the link on the error page to be malformed and instead point to a page of their choice. This would only be exploitable where a server was set up with proxying enabled but was misconfigured in such a way that the Proxy Error page was displayed.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.1 6.1 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

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.

Changed

An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.

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.

Low

There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

Low

Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

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 4.3 AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N 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 : 47688

Date de publication : 2019-10-13 22h00 +00:00
Auteur : Sebastian Neef
EDB Vérifié : No

The trick is to use a vertical tab (`%09`) and then place another URL in the tag. So once a victim clicks the link on the error page, she will go somewhere else. As you can see, the browser changes the destination from relative / to an absolute url https://enoflag.de. The exploit is `http://domain.tld/%09//otherdomain.tld` Here's the httpd configuration to reproduce the behavior: ``` <Location /> ProxyPass http://127.0.0.1:9000/ connectiontimeout=1 timeout=2 ProxyPassReverse http://127.0.0.1:9000/ Order allow,deny Allow from all </Location> ```

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Apache>>Http_server >> Version From (including) 2.4.0 To (including) 2.4.39

Configuraton 0

Opensuse>>Leap >> Version 15.0

Opensuse>>Leap >> Version 15.1

Configuraton 0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 8.0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 9.0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 10.0

Configuraton 0

Redhat>>Software_collection >> Version 1.0

Configuraton 0

Fedoraproject>>Fedora >> Version 30

Configuraton 0

Canonical>>Ubuntu_linux >> Version 16.04

Canonical>>Ubuntu_linux >> Version 18.04

Canonical>>Ubuntu_linux >> Version 19.04

Configuraton 0

Netapp>>Clustered_data_ontap >> Version To (including) 9.5

Netapp>>Clustered_data_ontap >> Version 9.6

Netapp>>Clustered_data_ontap >> Version 9.6

Netapp>>Clustered_data_ontap >> Version 9.6

Netapp>>Clustered_data_ontap >> Version 9.6

Netapp>>Clustered_data_ontap >> Version 9.6

Netapp>>Clustered_data_ontap >> Version 9.6

Configuraton 0

Oracle>>Communications_element_manager >> Version 8.0.0

Oracle>>Communications_element_manager >> Version 8.1.0

Oracle>>Communications_element_manager >> Version 8.1.1

Oracle>>Communications_element_manager >> Version 8.2.0

Oracle>>Enterprise_manager_ops_center >> Version 12.3.3

Oracle>>Enterprise_manager_ops_center >> Version 12.4.0

Oracle>>Secure_global_desktop >> Version 5.4

Oracle>>Secure_global_desktop >> Version 5.5

Références

http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/08/15/4
Tags : mailing-list, x_refsource_MLIST
https://www.debian.org/security/2019/dsa-4509
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_DEBIAN
https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Aug/47
Tags : mailing-list, x_refsource_BUGTRAQ
https://usn.ubuntu.com/4113-1/
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_UBUNTU
https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201909-04
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_GENTOO
https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Oct/24
Tags : mailing-list, x_refsource_BUGTRAQ
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:4126
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/08/08/1
Tags : mailing-list, x_refsource_MLIST
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/08/08/9
Tags : mailing-list, x_refsource_MLIST