CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2017-12332

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type

Published: Nov 30, 2017 | Modified: Dec 15, 2017
CVSS 3.x
4.4
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS 2.x
4.9 MEDIUM
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:C/A:N
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

A vulnerability in Cisco NX-OS System Software patch installation could allow an authenticated, local attacker to write a file to arbitrary locations. The vulnerability is due to insufficient restrictions in the patch installation process. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by installing a crafted patch image on an affected device. The vulnerable operation occurs prior to patch activation. An exploit could allow the attacker to write arbitrary files on an affected system as root. The attacker would need valid administrator credentials to perform this exploit. This vulnerability affects the following products running Cisco NX-OS System Software: Multilayer Director Switches, Nexus 2000 Series Fabric Extenders, Nexus 5000 Series Switches, Nexus 5500 Platform Switches, Nexus 5600 Platform Switches, Nexus 6000 Series Switches, Nexus 7000 Series Switches, Nexus 7700 Series Switches, Unified Computing System Manager. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvf16513, CSCvf23794, CSCvf23832.

Weakness

The product allows the attacker to upload or transfer files of dangerous types that can be automatically processed within the product’s environment.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Unified_computing_system Cisco 7.0(0)hsk(0.357) 7.0(0)hsk(0.357)

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.
  • For example, limiting filenames to alphanumeric characters can help to restrict the introduction of unintended file extensions.
  • Run the code in a “jail” or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
  • OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
  • This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
  • Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

References