CVE-2024-45179

An issue was discovered in za-internet C-MOR Video Surveillance 5.2401 and 6.00PL01. Due to insufficient input validation, the C-MOR web interface is vulnerable to OS command injection attacks. It was found out that different functionality is vulnerable to OS command injection attacks, for example for generating new X.509 certificates, or setting the time zone. These OS command injection vulnerabilities in the script generatesslreq.pml can be exploited as a low-privileged authenticated user to execute commands in the context of the Linux user www-data via shell metacharacters in HTTP POST data (e.g., the city parameter). The OS command injection vulnerability in the script settimezone.pml or setdatetime.pml (e.g., via the year parameter) requires an administrative user for the C-MOR web interface. By also exploiting a privilege-escalation vulnerability, it is possible to execute commands on the C-MOR system with root privileges.

Weakness

The product receives an input value that is used as a resource identifier or other type of reference, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is equivalent to a potentially-unsafe value.

Extended Description

Attackers can sometimes bypass input validation schemes by finding inputs that appear to be safe, but will be dangerous when processed at a lower layer or by a downstream component. For example, a simple XSS protection mechanism might try to validate that an input has no “” tags using case-sensitive matching, but since HTML is case-insensitive when processed by web browsers, an attacker could inject “” and trigger XSS.

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

• https://www.syss.de/fileadmin/dokumente/Publikationen/Advisories/SYSS-2024-030.txt