CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-28850

Download of Code Without Integrity Check

Published: Mar 25, 2024 | Modified: Mar 25, 2024
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

WP Crontrol controls the cron events on WordPress websites. WP Crontrol includes a feature that allows administrative users to create events in the WP-Cron system that store and execute PHP code subject to the restrictive security permissions documented here. While there is no known vulnerability in this feature on its own, there exists potential for this feature to be vulnerable to RCE if it were specifically targeted via vulnerability chaining that exploited a separate SQLi (or similar) vulnerability. This is exploitable on a site if one of the below preconditions are met, the site is vulnerable to a writeable SQLi vulnerability in any plugin, theme, or WordPress core, the sites database is compromised at the hosting level, the site is vulnerable to a method of updating arbitrary options in the wp_options table, or the site is vulnerable to a method of triggering an arbitrary action, filter, or function with control of the parameters. As a hardening measure, WP Crontrol version 1.16.2 ships with a new feature that prevents tampering of the code stored in a PHP cron event.

Weakness

The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.

Potential Mitigations

  • Encrypt the code with a reliable encryption scheme before transmitting.

  • This will only be a partial solution, since it will not detect DNS spoofing and it will not prevent your code from being modified on the hosting site.

  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

  • Speficially, it may be helpful to use tools or frameworks to perform integrity checking on the transmitted code.

  • Run the code in a “jail” or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.

  • OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.

  • This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.

  • Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

References