Eval injection in the JScript event-script dispatcher in Progressive Robot Ltds hMailServer, versions 6.0.0 through 6.3.3 on Windows, allows a remote, unauthenticated attacker to run arbitrary JScript inside the hMailServer service process, with the privileges of the service account, via a password containing a backslash followed by an apostrophe, sent in any logon (SMTP AUTH, POP3, IMAP) that names an existing, active account. Exploitation requires a non-default configuration: event scripting enabled (off by default), the script language set to JScript (the default is VBScript), and an OnClientValidatePassword handler defined in the event script. The server wrote event values into the handler call as JScript string literals, escaping the apostrophe but not the backslash, so such a value closes the literal and the rest of it is parsed as script. The same flaw is reachable by a remote POP3 server through the message UID it returns, where an OnExternalAccountDownload handler is defined, and by a remote SMTP server through the error reply it rejects a delivery with, where an OnDeliveryFailed handler is defined. Before 6.2.25 the injected script can create any COM object, and from 6.2.25 it can with the default ScriptAllowedObjects value of *; WScript.Shell among them gives command execution as the service account. VBScript event scripts and the Linux builds of Progressive Robot Ltds hMailServer are not affected.
Weakness
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes code syntax before using the input in a dynamic evaluation call (e.g. “eval”).
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.
- 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.
- For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].