CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2023-20046

Authentication Bypass by Alternate Name

Published: May 09, 2023 | Modified: Nov 21, 2024
CVSS 3.x
8.8
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

A vulnerability in the key-based SSH authentication feature of Cisco StarOS Software could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to elevate privileges on an affected device. This vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied credentials. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a valid low-privileged SSH key to an affected device from a host that has an IP address that is configured as the source for a high-privileged user account. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to log in to the affected device through SSH as a high-privileged user. There are workarounds that address this vulnerability.

Weakness

The product performs authentication based on the name of a resource being accessed, or the name of the actor performing the access, but it does not properly check all possible names for that resource or actor.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Staros Cisco * 21.22.14 (excluding)
Staros Cisco 21.23.0 (including) 21.23.31 (excluding)
Staros Cisco 21.25.0 (including) 21.25.15 (excluding)
Staros Cisco 21.26.0 (including) 21.26.17 (excluding)
Staros Cisco 21.27.0 (including) 21.27.6 (excluding)
Staros Cisco 21.28.0 (including) 21.28.3 (excluding)
Staros Cisco 21.23.n (including) 21.23.n (including)
Staros Cisco 21.24 (including) 21.24 (including)
Staros Cisco 21.27.m (including) 21.27.m (including)
Staros Cisco 21.28.m (including) 21.28.m (including)

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