A vulnerability in the dashboard gadget rendering of Cisco Unified Intelligence Center could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to obtain or manipulate sensitive information between a user’s browser and Cisco Unified Intelligence Center. The vulnerability is due to the lack of gadget validation. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by forcing a user to load a malicious gadget. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to obtain sensitive information, such as current user credentials, or manipulate data between the user’s browser and Cisco Unified Intelligence Center in the context of the malicious gadget.
Weakness
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the input before it is used as an identifier for a resource that may be outside the intended sphere of control.
Affected Software
| Name |
Vendor |
Start Version |
End Version |
| Unified_intelligence_center |
Cisco |
12.0(1) (including) |
12.0(1) (including) |
Extended Description
A resource injection issue occurs when the following two conditions are met:
This may enable an attacker to access or modify otherwise protected system resources.
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, it can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
References