CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2023-36924

Improper Output Neutralization for Logs

Published: Jul 11, 2023 | Modified: Jul 19, 2023
CVSS 3.x
4.9
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

While using a specific function, SAP ERP Defense Forces and Public Security - versions 600, 603, 604, 605, 616, 617, 618, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, allows an authenticated attacker with admin privileges to write arbitrary data to the syslog file. On successful exploitation, an attacker could modify all the syslog data causing a complete compromise of integrity of the application.

Weakness

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes output that is written to logs.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Erp_defense_forces_and_public_security Sap 600 (including) 600 (including)
Erp_defense_forces_and_public_security Sap 603 (including) 603 (including)
Erp_defense_forces_and_public_security Sap 604 (including) 604 (including)
Erp_defense_forces_and_public_security Sap 605 (including) 605 (including)
Erp_defense_forces_and_public_security Sap 616 (including) 616 (including)
Erp_defense_forces_and_public_security Sap 617 (including) 617 (including)
Erp_defense_forces_and_public_security Sap 618 (including) 618 (including)
Erp_defense_forces_and_public_security Sap 802 (including) 802 (including)
Erp_defense_forces_and_public_security Sap 803 (including) 803 (including)
Erp_defense_forces_and_public_security Sap 804 (including) 804 (including)
Erp_defense_forces_and_public_security Sap 805 (including) 805 (including)
Erp_defense_forces_and_public_security Sap 806 (including) 806 (including)
Erp_defense_forces_and_public_security Sap 807 (including) 807 (including)

Extended Description

This can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into logs. Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

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