CVE-2024-21117

Vulnerability in the Oracle Outside In Technology product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Outside In Core). Supported versions that are affected are 8.5.6 and 8.5.7. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with logon to the infrastructure where Oracle Outside In Technology executes to compromise Oracle Outside In Technology. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of Oracle Outside In Technology accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of Oracle Outside In Technology accessible data and unauthorized ability to cause a partial denial of service (partial DOS) of Oracle Outside In Technology. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 5.3 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L).

Weakness

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.

Extended Description

Command injection vulnerabilities typically occur when:

Many protocols and products have their own custom command language. While OS or shell command strings are frequently discovered and targeted, developers may not realize that these other command languages might also be vulnerable to attacks. Command injection is a common problem with wrapper programs.

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.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/136.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/15.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/183.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/248.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/40.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/43.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/75.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/76.html

References

• https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuapr2024.html
• https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuapr2024.html