Multiple vulnerabilities in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business RV320 and RV325 Dual Gigabit WAN VPN Routers could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to inject and execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system of an affected device. These vulnerabilities are due to insufficient validation of user-supplied input. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by sending malicious input to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands as the root user on the underlying Linux operating system of the affected device. To exploit these vulnerabilities, an attacker would need to have valid Administrator credentials on the affected device. Cisco has not released software updates to address these vulnerabilities.
Weakness
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as expression or command delimiters when they are sent to a downstream component.
Affected Software
| Name |
Vendor |
Start Version |
End Version |
| Rv320_firmware |
Cisco |
- (including) |
- (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