In Splunk Enterprise versions below 10.0.1, 9.4.6, 9.3.8, and 9.2.10, and Splunk Cloud Platform versions below 10.1.2507.4, 10.0.2503.6, and 9.3.2411.117.125, an unauthenticated attacker can inject American National Standards Institute (ANSI) escape codes into Splunk log files due to improper validation at the /en-US/static/ web endpoint. This may allow them to poison, forge, or obfuscate sensitive log data through specially crafted HTTP requests, potentially impacting log integrity and detection capabilities.
Weakness
The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file.
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Splunk | Splunk | 9.2.0 (including) | 9.2.10 (excluding) |
| Splunk | Splunk | 9.3.0 (including) | 9.3.8 (excluding) |
| Splunk | Splunk | 9.4.0 (including) | 9.4.6 (excluding) |
| Splunk | Splunk | 10.0.0 (including) | 10.0.0 (including) |
| Splunk_cloud_platform | Splunk | 9.3.2411 (including) | 9.3.2411.117 (excluding) |
| Splunk_cloud_platform | Splunk | 10.0.2503 (including) | 10.0.2503.6 (excluding) |
| Splunk_cloud_platform | Splunk | 10.1.2507 (including) | 10.1.2507.4 (excluding) |
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/268.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/81.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/93.html