CVE-2024-8160

Erik de Jong, member of the AXIS OS Bug Bounty Program, has found that the VAPIX API ftptest.cgi did not have a sufficient input validation allowing for a possible command injection leading to being able to transfer files from/to the Axis device. This flaw can only be exploited after authenticating with an administrator-privileged service account. Axis has released patched AXIS OS versions for the highlighted flaw. Please refer to the Axis security advisory for more information and solution.

Weakness

The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.

Extended Description

Often, complex inputs are expected to follow a particular syntax, which is either assumed by the input itself, or declared within metadata such as headers. The syntax could be for data exchange formats, markup languages, or even programming languages. When untrusted input is not properly validated for the expected syntax, attackers could cause parsing failures, trigger unexpected errors, or expose latent vulnerabilities that might not be directly exploitable if the input had conformed to the syntax.

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/66.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/676.html

References

• https://www.axis.com/dam/public/permalink/231071/cve-2024-8160pdf-en-US_InternalID-231071.pdf