CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2018-19949

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

Published: Oct 28, 2020 | Modified: Nov 13, 2020
CVSS 3.x
9.8
CRITICAL
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
7.5 HIGH
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

If exploited, this command injection vulnerability could allow remote attackers to run arbitrary commands. QNAP has already fixed the issue in the following QTS versions. QTS 4.4.2.1231 on build 20200302; QTS 4.4.1.1201 on build 20200130; QTS 4.3.6.1218 on build 20200214; QTS 4.3.4.1190 on build 20200107; QTS 4.3.3.1161 on build 20200109; QTS 4.2.6 on build 20200109.

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
Qts Qnap * 4.2.6 (excluding)
Qts Qnap 4.3.1.0013 (including) 4.3.3.1161 (excluding)
Qts Qnap 4.3.4 (including) 4.3.4.1190 (excluding)
Qts Qnap 4.3.6 (including) 4.3.6.1218 (excluding)
Qts Qnap 4.4.0 (including) 4.4.1.1201 (excluding)
Qts Qnap 4.4.2 (including) 4.4.2.1231 (excluding)
Qts Qnap 4.2.6 (including) 4.2.6 (including)
Qts Qnap 4.2.6-build_20170517 (including) 4.2.6-build_20170517 (including)
Qts Qnap 4.2.6-build_20190322 (including) 4.2.6-build_20190322 (including)
Qts Qnap 4.2.6-build_20190730 (including) 4.2.6-build_20190730 (including)
Qts Qnap 4.2.6-build_20190921 (including) 4.2.6-build_20190921 (including)
Qts Qnap 4.2.6-build_20191107 (including) 4.2.6-build_20191107 (including)

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