CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2017-12341

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

Published: Nov 30, 2017 | Modified: Oct 09, 2019
CVSS 3.x
6.7
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/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

A vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco NX-OS System Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to perform a command injection attack. An attacker would need valid administrator credentials to perform this exploit. The vulnerability is due to insufficient input validation during the installation of a software patch. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by installing a crafted patch image with the vulnerable operation occurring prior to patch activation. An exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands on an affected system as root. 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: CSCvf23735, CSCvg04072.

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
Unified_computing_system Cisco 7.0(0)hsk(0.357) 7.0(0)hsk(0.357)

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