CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2017-10603

XML Injection (aka Blind XPath Injection)

Published: Jul 17, 2017 | Modified: Oct 09, 2019
CVSS 3.x
7.8
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
7.2 HIGH
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

An XML injection vulnerability in Junos OS CLI can allow a locally authenticated user to elevate privileges and run arbitrary commands as the root user. This issue was found during internal product security testing. Affected releases are Juniper Networks Junos OS 15.1X53 prior to 15.1X53-D47, 15.1 prior to 15.1R3. Junos versions prior to 15.1 are not affected. No other Juniper Networks products or platforms are affected by this issue.

Weakness

The product does not properly neutralize special elements that are used in XML, allowing attackers to modify the syntax, content, or commands of the XML before it is processed by an end system.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Junos Juniper 15.1x53 (including) 15.1x53 (including)
Junos Juniper 15.1x53-d10 (including) 15.1x53-d10 (including)
Junos Juniper 15.1x53-d20 (including) 15.1x53-d20 (including)
Junos Juniper 15.1x53-d21 (including) 15.1x53-d21 (including)
Junos Juniper 15.1x53-d25 (including) 15.1x53-d25 (including)
Junos Juniper 15.1x53-d30 (including) 15.1x53-d30 (including)
Junos Juniper 15.1x53-d32 (including) 15.1x53-d32 (including)
Junos Juniper 15.1x53-d33 (including) 15.1x53-d33 (including)
Junos Juniper 15.1x53-d34 (including) 15.1x53-d34 (including)
Junos Juniper 15.1x53-d40 (including) 15.1x53-d40 (including)
Junos Juniper 15.1x53-d45 (including) 15.1x53-d45 (including)

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.

References