A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC S7-PLCSIM V17 (All versions), SIMATIC S7-PLCSIM V18 (All versions), SIMATIC STEP 7 Safety V17 (All versions < V17 Update 9), SIMATIC STEP 7 Safety V18 (All versions < V18 Update 6), SIMATIC STEP 7 Safety V19 (All versions < V19 Update 4), SIMATIC STEP 7 V17 (All versions < V17 Update 9), SIMATIC STEP 7 V18 (All versions < V18 Update 6), SIMATIC STEP 7 V19 (All versions < V19 Update 4), SIMATIC WinCC Unified PC Runtime V18 (All versions), SIMATIC WinCC Unified PC Runtime V19 (All versions < V19 Update 4), SIMATIC WinCC Unified V17 (All versions < V17 Update 9), SIMATIC WinCC Unified V18 (All versions < V18 Update 6), SIMATIC WinCC Unified V19 (All versions < V19 Update 4), SIMATIC WinCC V17 (All versions < V17 Update 9), SIMATIC WinCC V18 (All versions < V18 Update 6), SIMATIC WinCC V19 (All versions < V19 Update 4), SIMOCODE ES V17 (All versions), SIMOCODE ES V18 (All versions), SIMOCODE ES V19 (All versions), SIMOTION SCOUT TIA V5.4 (All versions), SIMOTION SCOUT TIA V5.5 (All versions), SIMOTION SCOUT TIA V5.6 (All versions < V5.6 SP1 HF7), SINAMICS Startdrive V17 (All versions), SINAMICS Startdrive V18 (All versions), SINAMICS Startdrive V19 (All versions), SIRIUS Safety ES V17 (TIA Portal) (All versions), SIRIUS Safety ES V18 (TIA Portal) (All versions), SIRIUS Safety ES V19 (TIA Portal) (All versions), SIRIUS Soft Starter ES V17 (TIA Portal) (All versions), SIRIUS Soft Starter ES V18 (TIA Portal) (All versions), SIRIUS Soft Starter ES V19 (TIA Portal) (All versions), TIA Portal Cloud V17 (All versions), TIA Portal Cloud V18 (All versions), TIA Portal Cloud V19 (All versions < V5.2.1.1). The affected devices do not properly sanitize user-controllable input when parsing user settings. This could allow an attacker to locally execute arbitrary commands in the host operating system with the privileges of the user.
Weakness
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
Extended Description
Input validation is a frequently-used technique for checking potentially dangerous inputs in order to ensure that the inputs are safe for processing within the code, or when communicating with other components. Input can consist of:
Data can be simple or structured. Structured data can be composed of many nested layers, composed of combinations of metadata and raw data, with other simple or structured data. Many properties of raw data or metadata may need to be validated upon entry into the code, such as:
Implied or derived properties of data must often be calculated or inferred by the code itself. Errors in deriving properties may be considered a contributing factor to improper input validation.
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.
- For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
- Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application’s current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control.
- Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
Related Attack Patterns
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/10.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/101.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/104.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/108.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/109.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/110.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/120.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/13.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/135.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/136.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/14.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/153.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/182.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/209.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/22.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/23.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/230.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/231.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/24.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/250.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/261.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/267.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/28.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/3.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/31.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/42.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/43.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/45.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/46.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/47.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/473.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/52.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/53.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/588.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/63.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/64.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/664.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/67.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/7.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/71.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/72.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/73.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/78.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/8.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/80.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/81.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/83.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/85.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/88.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/9.html