CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2015-4524

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type

Published: Jul 04, 2015 | Modified: Dec 28, 2016
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
6.5 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

Unrestricted file upload vulnerability in EMC Documentum WebTop 6.7SP1 before P31, 6.7SP2 before P23, and 6.8 before P01; Documentum Administrator 6.7SP1 before P31, 6.7SP2 before P23, 7.0 before P18, 7.1 before P15, and 7.2 before P01; Documentum Digital Assets Manager 6.5SP6 before P25; Documentum Web Publishers 6.5 SP7 before P25; and Documentum Task Space 6.7SP1 before P31 and 6.7SP2 before P23 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary code by uploading a file to the backend Content Server.

Weakness

The product allows the attacker to upload or transfer files of dangerous types that can be automatically processed within the product’s environment.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Documentum_webtop Emc 6.7 6.7
Documentum_administrator Emc 6.7 6.7
Documentum_administrator Emc 7.2 7.2
Documentum_administrator Emc 6.7 6.7
Documentum_webtop Emc 6.8 6.8
Documentum_webtop Emc 6.7 6.7
Documentum_taskspace Emc 6.7 6.7
Documentum_administrator Emc 7.1 7.1
Documentum_taskspace Emc 6.7 6.7
Documentum_digital_asset_manager Emc 6.5 6.5
Documentum_web_publisher Emc 6.5 6.5
Documentum_administrator Emc 7.0 7.0

Potential Mitigations

  • Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
  • When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
  • Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • For example, limiting filenames to alphanumeric characters can help to restrict the introduction of unintended file extensions.
  • Run the code in a “jail” or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
  • OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
  • This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
  • Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

References