CVE-2022-34663

A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM i800, RUGGEDCOM i800NC, RUGGEDCOM i801, RUGGEDCOM i801NC, RUGGEDCOM i802, RUGGEDCOM i802NC, RUGGEDCOM i803, RUGGEDCOM i803NC, RUGGEDCOM M2100, RUGGEDCOM M2100F, RUGGEDCOM M2100NC, RUGGEDCOM M2200, RUGGEDCOM M2200F, RUGGEDCOM M2200NC, RUGGEDCOM M969, RUGGEDCOM M969F, RUGGEDCOM M969NC, RUGGEDCOM RMC30, RUGGEDCOM RMC30NC, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RP110, RUGGEDCOM RP110NC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600, RUGGEDCOM RS1600F, RUGGEDCOM RS1600FNC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600NC, RUGGEDCOM RS1600T, RUGGEDCOM RS1600TNC, RUGGEDCOM RS400, RUGGEDCOM RS400F, RUGGEDCOM RS400NC, RUGGEDCOM RS401, RUGGEDCOM RS401NC, RUGGEDCOM RS416, RUGGEDCOM RS416F, RUGGEDCOM RS416NC, RUGGEDCOM RS416NCv2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416NCv2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416P, RUGGEDCOM RS416PF, RUGGEDCOM RS416PNC, RUGGEDCOM RS416PNCv2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416PNCv2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS8000, RUGGEDCOM RS8000A, RUGGEDCOM RS8000ANC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000H, RUGGEDCOM RS8000HNC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000NC, RUGGEDCOM RS8000T, RUGGEDCOM RS8000TNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900F, RUGGEDCOM RS900G, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GF, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GNC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GP, RUGGEDCOM RS900GPF, RUGGEDCOM RS900GPNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900L, RUGGEDCOM RS900LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-GETS-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-GETS-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-STND-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900MNC-STND-XX-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900NC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900W, RUGGEDCOM RS910, RUGGEDCOM RS910L, RUGGEDCOM RS910LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS910NC, RUGGEDCOM RS910W, RUGGEDCOM RS920L, RUGGEDCOM RS920LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS920W, RUGGEDCOM RS930L, RUGGEDCOM RS930LNC, RUGGEDCOM RS930W, RUGGEDCOM RS940G, RUGGEDCOM RS940GF, RUGGEDCOM RS940GNC, RUGGEDCOM RS969, RUGGEDCOM RS969NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC(32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100NC(32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100PF, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100PNC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200NC, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PF, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PNC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PNC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488NC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488NC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG907R, RUGGEDCOM RSG908C, RUGGEDCOM RSG909R, RUGGEDCOM RSG910C, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920PNC V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920PNC V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSL910, RUGGEDCOM RSL910NC, RUGGEDCOM RST2228, RUGGEDCOM RST2228P, RUGGEDCOM RST916C, RUGGEDCOM RST916P. Affected devices are vulnerable to a web-based code injection attack via the console.

An attacker could exploit this vulnerability to inject code into the web server and cause malicious behavior in legitimate users accessing certain web resources on the affected device.

Weakness

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

Affected Software

Extended Description

When a product allows a user’s input to contain code syntax, it might be possible for an attacker to craft the code in such a way that it will alter the intended control flow of the product. Such an alteration could lead to arbitrary code execution. Injection problems encompass a wide variety of issues – all mitigated in very different ways. For this reason, the most effective way to discuss these weaknesses is to note the distinct features which classify them as injection weaknesses. The most important issue to note is that all injection problems share one thing in common – i.e., they allow for the injection of control plane data into the user-controlled data plane. This means that the execution of the process may be altered by sending code in through legitimate data channels, using no other mechanism. While buffer overflows, and many other flaws, involve the use of some further issue to gain execution, injection problems need only for the data to be parsed. The most classic instantiations of this category of weakness are SQL injection and format string vulnerabilities.

Potential Mitigations

• Run your code in a “jail” or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
• Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection.
• This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise.
• Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
• 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.
• To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/242.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/35.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html

References

• https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-840800.pdf