CVE-2017-12629 : Détail

CVE-2017-12629

9.8
/
Critique
A05-Security Misconfiguration
93.89%V4
Network
2017-10-14
19h00 +00:00
2021-08-17
10h06 +00:00
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

Remote code execution occurs in Apache Solr before 7.1 with Apache Lucene before 7.1 by exploiting XXE in conjunction with use of a Config API add-listener command to reach the RunExecutableListener class. Elasticsearch, although it uses Lucene, is NOT vulnerable to this. Note that the XML external entity expansion vulnerability occurs in the XML Query Parser which is available, by default, for any query request with parameters deftype=xmlparser and can be exploited to upload malicious data to the /upload request handler or as Blind XXE using ftp wrapper in order to read arbitrary local files from the Solr server. Note also that the second vulnerability relates to remote code execution using the RunExecutableListener available on all affected versions of Solr.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-611 Improper Restriction of XML External Entity Reference
The product processes an XML document that can contain XML entities with URIs that resolve to documents outside of the intended sphere of control, causing the product to embed incorrect documents into its output.

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

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.

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 : 43009

Date de publication : 2017-10-16 22h00 +00:00
Auteur : Michael Stepankin & Olga Barinova
EDB Vérifié : Yes

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Apache>>Solr >> Version From (including) 5.5.0 To (including) 5.5.4

Apache>>Solr >> Version From (including) 6.0.0 To (including) 6.6.1

Apache>>Solr >> Version From (including) 7.0.0 To (including) 7.0.1

Configuraton 0

Redhat>>Jboss_enterprise_application_platform >> Version 7.0.0

Redhat>>Jboss_enterprise_application_platform >> Version 7.1.0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_server >> Version 6.0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux_server >> Version 7.0

Configuraton 0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 7.0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 8.0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 9.0

Configuraton 0

Canonical>>Ubuntu_linux >> Version 16.04

Références

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:3451
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://s.apache.org/FJDl
Tags : mailing-list, x_refsource_MLIST
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:0002
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/101261
Tags : vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:0004
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:3452
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/43009/
Tags : exploit, x_refsource_EXPLOIT-DB
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:0003
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:3123
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:0005
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:3244
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:3124
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
https://www.debian.org/security/2018/dsa-4124
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_DEBIAN
https://usn.ubuntu.com/4259-1/
Tags : vendor-advisory, x_refsource_UBUNTU