CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2017-6015

Unquoted Search Path or Element

Published: May 11, 2018 | Modified: Nov 21, 2024
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

Without quotation marks, any whitespace in the file path for Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk Activation version 4.00.02 remains ambiguous, which may allow an attacker to link to or run a malicious executable. This may allow an authorized, but not privileged local user to execute arbitrary code with elevated privileges on the system. CVSS v3 base score: 8.8, CVSS vector string: (AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H). Rockwell Automation has released a new version of FactoryTalk Activation, Version 4.01, which addresses the identified vulnerability. Rockwell Automation recommends upgrading to the latest version of FactoryTalk Activation, Version 4.01 or later.

Weakness

The product uses a search path that contains an unquoted element, in which the element contains whitespace or other separators. This can cause the product to access resources in a parent path.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Factorytalk_activation Rockwellautomation * 4.00.02 (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