CVE-2016-4922

Certain combinations of Junos OS CLI commands and arguments have been found to be exploitable in a way that can allow unauthorized access to the operating system. This may allow any user with permissions to run these CLI commands the ability to achieve elevated privileges and gain complete control of the device. Affected releases are Juniper Networks Junos OS 11.4 prior to 11.4R13-S3; 12.1X46 prior to 12.1X46-D60; 12.1X47 prior to 12.1X47-D45; 12.3 prior to 12.3R12; 12.3X48 prior to 12.3X48-D35; 13.2 prior to 13.2R9; 13.3 prior to 13.3R4-S11, 13.3R9; 14.1 prior to 14.1R4-S12, 14.1R7; 14.1X53 prior to 14.1X53-D28, 14.1X53-D40; 14.1X55 prior to 14.1X55-D35; 14.2 prior to 14.2R3-S10, 14.2R4-S7, 14.2R5; 15.1 prior to 15.1F4, 15.1R3; 15.1X49 prior to 15.1X49-D60; 15.1X53 prior to 15.1X53-D57, 15.1X53-D70.

Weakness

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.

Affected Software

Extended Description

Command injection vulnerabilities typically occur when:

Many protocols and products have their own custom command language. While OS or shell command strings are frequently discovered and targeted, developers may not realize that these other command languages might also be vulnerable to attacks. Command injection is a common problem with wrapper programs.

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.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/136.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/15.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/183.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/248.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/40.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/43.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/75.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/76.html

References

• http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/93534
• http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037013
• https://kb.juniper.net/JSA10763