ID CVE-2008-3271
Summary Apache Tomcat 5.5.0 and 4.1.0 through 4.1.31 allows remote attackers to bypass an IP address restriction and obtain sensitive information via a request that is processed concurrently with another request but in a different thread, leading to an instance-variable overwrite associated with a "synchronization problem" and lack of thread safety, and related to RemoteFilterValve, RemoteAddrValve, and RemoteHostValve.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 4.1.0
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.0
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 4.1.1
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.1
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 4.1.2
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.2
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 4.1.3
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.3
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 4.1.3 beta
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.3:beta
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.4
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.4
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.5
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.5
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.6
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.6
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.7
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.7
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.8
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.8
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.9
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.9
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 4.1.10
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.10
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.11
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.11
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 4.1.12
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.12
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.13
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.13
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.14
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.14
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 4.1.15
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.15
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.16
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.16
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.17
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.17
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.18
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.18
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.19
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.19
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.20
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.20
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.21
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.21
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.22
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.22
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.23
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.23
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 4.1.24
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.24
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.25
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.25
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.26
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.26
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.27
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.27
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 4.1.28
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.28
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 4.1.29
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.29
  • cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.30
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.30
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 4.1.31
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:4.1.31
  • Apache Software Foundation Tomcat 5.5.0
    cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:5.5.0
CVSS
Base: 4.3 (as of 14-10-2008 - 10:12)
Impact:
Exploitability:
CWE CWE-264
CAPEC
  • Accessing, Modifying or Executing Executable Files
    An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an attacker to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an attacker to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
  • Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files
    An attack of this type exploits a system's trust in configuration and resource files, when the executable loads the resource (such as an image file or configuration file) the attacker has modified the file to either execute malicious code directly or manipulate the target process (e.g. application server) to execute based on the malicious configuration parameters. Since systems are increasingly interrelated mashing up resources from local and remote sources the possibility of this attack occurring is high. The attack can be directed at a client system, such as causing buffer overrun through loading seemingly benign image files, as in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-028 where specially crafted JPEG files could cause a buffer overrun once loaded into the browser. Another example targets clients reading pdf files. In this case the attacker simply appends javascript to the end of a legitimate url for a pdf (http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/danger-danger-danger/) http://path/to/pdf/file.pdf#whatever_name_you_want=javascript:your_code_here The client assumes that they are reading a pdf, but the attacker has modified the resource and loaded executable javascript into the client's browser process. The attack can also target server processes. The attacker edits the resource or configuration file, for example a web.xml file used to configure security permissions for a J2EE app server, adding role name "public" grants all users with the public role the ability to use the administration functionality. The server trusts its configuration file to be correct, but when they are manipulated, the attacker gains full control.
  • Blue Boxing
    This type of attack against older telephone switches and trunks has been around for decades. A tone is sent by an adversary to impersonate a supervisor signal which has the effect of rerouting or usurping command of the line. While the US infrastructure proper may not contain widespread vulnerabilities to this type of attack, many companies are connected globally through call centers and business process outsourcing. These international systems may be operated in countries which have not upgraded Telco infrastructure and so are vulnerable to Blue boxing. Blue boxing is a result of failure on the part of the system to enforce strong authorization for administrative functions. While the infrastructure is different than standard current applications like web applications, there are historical lessons to be learned to upgrade the access control for administrative functions.
  • Restful Privilege Elevation
    Rest uses standard HTTP (Get, Put, Delete) style permissions methods, but these are not necessarily correlated generally with back end programs. Strict interpretation of HTTP get methods means that these HTTP Get services should not be used to delete information on the server, but there is no access control mechanism to back up this logic. This means that unless the services are properly ACL'd and the application's service implementation are following these guidelines then an HTTP request can easily execute a delete or update on the server side. The attacker identifies a HTTP Get URL such as http://victimsite/updateOrder, which calls out to a program to update orders on a database or other resource. The URL is not idempotent so the request can be submitted multiple times by the attacker, additionally, the attacker may be able to exploit the URL published as a Get method that actually performs updates (instead of merely retrieving data). This may result in malicious or inadvertent altering of data on the server.
  • Target Programs with Elevated Privileges
    This attack targets programs running with elevated privileges. The attacker would try to leverage a bug in the running program and get arbitrary code to execute with elevated privileges. For instance an attacker would look for programs that write to the system directories or registry keys (such as HKLM, which stores a number of critical Windows environment variables). These programs are typically running with elevated privileges and have usually not been designed with security in mind. Such programs are excellent exploit targets because they yield lots of power when they break. The malicious user try to execute its code at the same level as a privileged system call.
  • Manipulating Input to File System Calls
    An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
Access
VectorComplexityAuthentication
NETWORK MEDIUM NONE
Impact
ConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
PARTIAL NONE NONE
nessus via4
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id SUSE_TOMCAT5-5684.NASL
    description This update of tomcat fixes an information leak due to incorrect IP address filtering. (CVE-2008-3271)
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-19
    plugin id 34442
    published 2008-10-17
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=34442
    title openSUSE 10 Security Update : tomcat5 (tomcat5-5684)
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id SUSE9_12271.NASL
    description This update of tomcat fixes an information leak due to incorrect IP address filtering. (CVE-2008-3271)
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2013-04-17
    plugin id 41249
    published 2009-09-24
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=41249
    title SuSE9 Security Update : Tomcat (YOU Patch Number 12271)
  • NASL family Web Servers
    NASL id TOMCAT_5_5_1.NASL
    description According to its self-reported version number, the instance of Apache Tomcat 5.x listening on the remote host is prior to 5.5.1. It is, therefore, affected by an information disclosure vulnerability. Specifically, it may allow requests from a non-permitted IP address to gain access to a context that is protected with a valve that extends RequestFilterValve. Note that Nessus has not tested for these issues but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version number.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-15
    plugin id 47028
    published 2010-06-16
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=47028
    title Apache Tomcat 5.x < 5.5.1 Information Disclosure
  • NASL family Web Servers
    NASL id TOMCAT_4_1_32.NASL
    description According to its self-reported version number, the instance of Apache Tomcat 4.x listening on the remote host is prior to 4.1.32. It is, therefore, affected by the following vulnerabilities : - The remote Apache Tomcat install is vulnerable to a denial of service attack. If directory listing is enabled, function calls to retrieve the contents of large directories can degrade performance. (CVE-2005-3510) - The remote Apache Tomcat install may be vulnerable to a cross-site scripting attack if the JSP examples are enabled. Several of these JSP examples do not properly validate user input. (CVE-2005-4838) - The remote Apache Tomcat install allows remote users to list the contents of a directory by placing a semicolon before a filename with a mapped extension. (CVE-2006-3835) - If enabled, the JSP calendar example application is vulnerable to a cross-site scripting attack because user input is not properly validated. (CVE-2006-7196) - The remote Apache Tomcat install, in its default configuration, permits the use of insecure ciphers when using SSL. (CVE-2007-1858) - The remote Apache Tomcat install may be vulnerable to an information disclosure attack by allowing requests from a non-permitted IP address to gain access to a context that is protected with a valve that extends RequestFilterValve. (CVE-2008-3271) Note that Nessus has not tested for these issues but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version number.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-15
    plugin id 47029
    published 2010-06-16
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=47029
    title Apache Tomcat 4.x < 4.1.32 Multiple Vulnerabilities
  • NASL family SuSE Local Security Checks
    NASL id SUSE_TOMCAT5-5689.NASL
    description This update of tomcat fixes an information leak due to incorrect IP address filtering. (CVE-2008-3271)
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2013-04-17
    plugin id 34499
    published 2008-10-27
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=34499
    title SuSE 10 Security Update : Tomcat 5 (ZYPP Patch Number 5689)
  • NASL family Red Hat Local Security Checks
    NASL id REDHAT-RHSA-2008-1007.NASL
    description Updated tomcat packages that fix multiple security issues are now available for Red Hat Network Satellite Server. This update has been rated as having low security impact by the Red Hat Security Response Team. This update corrects several security vulnerabilities in the Tomcat component shipped as part of Red Hat Network Satellite Server. In a typical operating environment, Tomcat is not exposed to users of Satellite Server in a vulnerable manner. These security updates will reduce risk in unique Satellite Server environments. Multiple flaws were fixed in the Apache Tomcat package. (CVE-2008-1232, CVE-2008-1947, CVE-2008-2370, CVE-2008-2938, CVE-2008-3271) Users of Red Hat Network Satellite Server 5.0 or 5.1 are advised to update to these Tomcat packages which resolve these issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2019-02-07
    plugin id 43842
    published 2010-01-10
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=43842
    title RHEL 4 : tomcat in Satellite Server (RHSA-2008:1007)
refmap via4
bid 31698
bugtraq 20081009 [SECURITY] CVE-2008-3271 - Apache Tomcat information disclosure
confirm
jvn JVN#30732239
jvndb JVNDB-2008-000069
sectrack 1021039
secunia
  • 32213
  • 32234
  • 32398
  • 35684
sreason 4396
suse SUSE-SR:2008:023
vupen
  • ADV-2008-2793
  • ADV-2008-2800
  • ADV-2009-1818
xf apache-tomcat-valve-security-bypass(45791)
Last major update 07-03-2011 - 22:10
Published 13-10-2008 - 16:00
Last modified 21-03-2019 - 11:41
Back to Top