CVE-2017-9388

An issue was discovered on Vera VeraEdge 1.7.19 and Veralite 1.7.481 devices. The device provides a web user interface that allows a user to manage the device. As a part of the functionality the device firmware file contains a file known as proxy.sh which allows the device to proxy a specific request to and from from another website. This is primarily used as a method of communication between the device and Vera website when the user is logged in to the https://home.getvera.com and allows the device to communicate between the device and website. One of the parameters retrieved by this specific script is url. This parameter is not sanitized by the script correctly and is passed in a call to eval to execute curl functionality. This allows an attacker to escape from the executed command and then execute any commands of his/her choice.

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

• http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/153242/Veralite-Veraedge-Router-XSS-Command-Injection-CSRF-Traversal.html
• https://github.com/ethanhunnt/IoT_vulnerabilities/blob/master/Vera_sec_issues.pdf
• https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Jun/8