A vulnerability in the implementation of the proprietary SSH stack with SSH key-based authentication in Cisco Secure Firewall Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to log in to a Cisco Secure Firewall ASA device and execute commands as a specific user.
This vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user input during the SSH authentication phase. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting crafted input during SSH authentication to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to log in to the device as a specific user without the private SSH key of that user. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must possess a valid username and the associated public key. The private key is not required. Notes:
Exploitation of this vulnerability does not provide the attacker with root access. The authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA) configuration command auto-enable is not affected by this vulnerability.
Weakness
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as control elements or syntactic markers when they are sent to a downstream component.
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/105.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/15.html
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/34.html