CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2017-11392

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')

Published: Aug 03, 2017 | Modified: Aug 05, 2017
CVSS 3.x
8.8
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
6.5 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

Proxy command injection vulnerability in Trend Micro InterScan Messaging Virtual Appliance 9.0 and 9.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on vulnerable installations. The specific flaw can be exploited by parsing the T parameter within modTMCSS Proxy. Formerly ZDI-CAN-4745.

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

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Interscan_messaging_security_virtual_appliance Trendmicro 9.0 9.0
Interscan_messaging_security_virtual_appliance Trendmicro 9.1 9.1

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.

References