CVE-2016-9553

The Sophos Web Appliance (version 4.2.1.3) is vulnerable to two Remote Command Injection vulnerabilities affecting its web administrative interface. These vulnerabilities occur in the MgrReport.php (/controllers/MgrReport.php) component responsible for blocking and unblocking IP addresses from accessing the device. The device doesnt properly escape the information passed in the variables unblockip and blockip before calling the shell_exec() function which allows for system commands to be injected into the device. The code erroneously suggests that the information handled is protected by utilizing the variable name escapedips - however this was not the case. The Sophos ID is NSWA-1258.

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://pastebin.com/DUYuN0U5
• http://swa.sophos.com/rn/swa/concepts/ReleaseNotes_4.3.1.html
• http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95853
• https://community.sophos.com/products/web-appliance/b/blog/posts/release-of-swa-version-4-3-1