A vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco NX-OS Software could allow an authenticated user in possession of Administrator credentials to execute arbitrary commands as root on the underlying operating system of an affected device.
This vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of arguments that are passed to specific configuration CLI commands. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by including crafted input as the argument of an affected configuration CLI command. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system with the privileges of root. Note: To successfully exploit this vulnerability on a Cisco NX-OS device, an attacker must have Administrator credentials. The following Cisco devices already allow administrative users to access the underlying operating system through the bash-shell feature, so, for these devices, this vulnerability does not grant any additional privileges:
Nexus 3000 Series Switches Nexus 7000 Series Switches that are running Cisco NX-OS Software releases 8.1(1) and later Nexus 9000 Series Switches in standalone NX-OS mode
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
---|---|---|---|
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(2) (including) | 6.2(2) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(2a) (including) | 6.2(2a) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(6) (including) | 6.2(6) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(6a) (including) | 6.2(6a) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(6b) (including) | 6.2(6b) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(8) (including) | 6.2(8) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(8a) (including) | 6.2(8a) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(8b) (including) | 6.2(8b) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(10) (including) | 6.2(10) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(12) (including) | 6.2(12) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(14) (including) | 6.2(14) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(16) (including) | 6.2(16) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(18) (including) | 6.2(18) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(20) (including) | 6.2(20) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(20a) (including) | 6.2(20a) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(22) (including) | 6.2(22) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(24) (including) | 6.2(24) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 6.2(24a) (including) | 6.2(24a) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.2(0)d1(1) (including) | 7.2(0)d1(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.2(1)d1(1) (including) | 7.2(1)d1(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.2(2)d1(1) (including) | 7.2(2)d1(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.2(2)d1(2) (including) | 7.2(2)d1(2) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.3(0)d1(1) (including) | 7.3(0)d1(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.3(0)dx(1) (including) | 7.3(0)dx(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.3(1)d1(1) (including) | 7.3(1)d1(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.3(2)d1(1) (including) | 7.3(2)d1(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.3(2)d1(2) (including) | 7.3(2)d1(2) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.3(2)d1(3) (including) | 7.3(2)d1(3) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.3(2)d1(3a) (including) | 7.3(2)d1(3a) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.3(3)d1(1) (including) | 7.3(3)d1(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.3(4)d1(1) (including) | 7.3(4)d1(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.3(5)d1(1) (including) | 7.3(5)d1(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.3(6)d1(1) (including) | 7.3(6)d1(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.3(7)d1(1) (including) | 7.3(7)d1(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.3(8)d1(1) (including) | 7.3(8)d1(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 7.3(9)d1(1) (including) | 7.3(9)d1(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.0(1) (including) | 8.0(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.1(1) (including) | 8.1(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.1(2) (including) | 8.1(2) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.1(2a) (including) | 8.1(2a) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.2(1) (including) | 8.2(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.2(2) (including) | 8.2(2) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.2(3) (including) | 8.2(3) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.2(4) (including) | 8.2(4) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.2(5) (including) | 8.2(5) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.2(6) (including) | 8.2(6) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.2(7) (including) | 8.2(7) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.2(7a) (including) | 8.2(7a) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.2(8) (including) | 8.2(8) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.2(9) (including) | 8.2(9) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.2(10) (including) | 8.2(10) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.2(11) (including) | 8.2(11) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.3(1) (including) | 8.3(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.3(2) (including) | 8.3(2) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.4(1) (including) | 8.4(1) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.4(2) (including) | 8.4(2) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.4(3) (including) | 8.4(3) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.4(4) (including) | 8.4(4) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.4(4a) (including) | 8.4(4a) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.4(5) (including) | 8.4(5) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.4(6) (including) | 8.4(6) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.4(6a) (including) | 8.4(6a) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.4(7) (including) | 8.4(7) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.4(8) (including) | 8.4(8) (including) |
Nx-os | Cisco | 8.4(9) (including) | 8.4(9) (including) |
This could allow attackers to execute unexpected, dangerous commands directly on the operating system. This weakness can lead to a vulnerability in environments in which the attacker does not have direct access to the operating system, such as in web applications. Alternately, if the weakness occurs in a privileged program, it could allow the attacker to specify commands that normally would not be accessible, or to call alternate commands with privileges that the attacker does not have. The problem is exacerbated if the compromised process does not follow the principle of least privilege, because the attacker-controlled commands may run with special system privileges that increases the amount of damage. There are at least two subtypes of OS command injection:
From a weakness standpoint, these variants represent distinct programmer errors. In the first variant, the programmer clearly intends that input from untrusted parties will be part of the arguments in the command to be executed. In the second variant, the programmer does not intend for the command to be accessible to any untrusted party, but the programmer probably has not accounted for alternate ways in which malicious attackers can provide input.