CVE-2021-31358

A command injection vulnerability in sftp command processing on Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved allows an attacker with authenticated CLI access to be able to bypass configured access protections to execute arbitrary shell commands within the context of the current user. The vulnerability allows an attacker to bypass command authorization restrictions assigned to their specific user account and execute commands that are available to the privilege level for which the user is assigned. For example, a user that is in the super-user login class, but restricted to executing specific CLI commands could exploit the vulnerability to execute any other command available to an unrestricted admin user. This vulnerability does not increase the privilege level of the user, but rather bypasses any CLI command restrictions by allowing full access to the shell. This issue affects Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved: All versions prior to 20.4R2-S2-EVO; 21.1 versions prior to 21.1R2-EVO; 21.2 versions prior to 21.2R1-S1-EVO, 21.2R2-EVO.

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

• https://kb.juniper.net/JSA11221
• https://kb.juniper.net/JSA11221