CVE-2017-12330

A vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco NX-OS System Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to perform a command injection attack. The vulnerability is due to insufficient input validation of command arguments to the CLI parser. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by injecting crafted command arguments into a vulnerable CLI command and gaining unauthorized access to the underlying operating system of the device. An exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands at the users privilege level. On products that support multiple virtual device contexts (VDCs), this vulnerability could allow an attacker to execute commands at the users privilege level outside the users environment. This vulnerability affects the following products running Cisco NX-OS System Software: Multilayer Director Switches, Nexus 2000 Series Fabric Extenders, Nexus 3000 Series Switches, Nexus 5000 Series Switches, Nexus 5500 Platform Switches, Nexus 5600 Platform Switches, Nexus 6000 Series Switches, Nexus 7000 Series Switches, Nexus 7700 Series Switches, Nexus 9000 Series Switches in standalone NX-OS mode, Nexus 9500 R-Series Line Cards and Fabric Modules. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCve99902, CSCvf14879.

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

• https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20171129-nss
• http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1039929
• http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/102012