CVE-2019-1613

A vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco NX-OS Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system of an affected device. The vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of arguments passed to certain CLI commands. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by including malicious input as the argument of an affected command. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system with elevated privileges. An attacker would need valid administrator credentials to exploit this vulnerability. MDS 9000 Series Multilayer Switches are affected running software versions prior to 6.2(27) and 8.2(3). Nexus 3000 Series Switches are affected running software versions prior to 7.0(3)I4(9) and 7.0(3)I7(6). Nexus 3500 Platform Switches are affected running software versions prior to 6.0(2)A8(11) and 7.0(3)I7(6). Nexus 3600 Platform Switches are affected running software versions prior to 7.0(3)F3(5). Nexus 9000 Series Switches in Standalone NX-OS Mode are affected running software versions prior to 7.0(3)I4(9), 7.0(3)I7(6). Nexus 9500 R-Series Line Cards and Fabric Modules are affected running software versions prior to 7.0(3)F3(5). Nexus 7000 and 7700 Series Switches are affected running software versions prior to 6.2(22) and 8.2(3).

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://www.securityfocus.com/bid/107392
• https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190306-nxos-cmdinj-1613
• http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/107392
• https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190306-nxos-cmdinj-1613