ID CVE-2009-0801
Summary Squid, when transparent interception mode is enabled, uses the HTTP Host header to determine the remote endpoint, which allows remote attackers to bypass access controls for Flash, Java, Silverlight, and probably other technologies, and possibly communicate with restricted intranet sites, via a crafted web page that causes a client to send HTTP requests with a modified Host header.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_pre1
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_pre1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_pre2
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_pre2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_pre3
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_pre3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable7
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable7
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable6
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable6
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable5
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable5
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable4
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable4
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable3
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable2
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable1
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable12
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable12
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable13
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:3.0_stable13
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:2.7.stable6
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:2.7.stable6
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:2.7.stable5
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:2.7.stable5
  • cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:2.7
    cpe:2.3:a:squid:squid_web_proxy_cache:2.7
CVSS
Base: 5.4 (as of 04-03-2009 - 12:38)
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 HIGH NONE
Impact
ConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
COMPLETE NONE NONE
nessus via4
  • NASL family Scientific Linux Local Security Checks
    NASL id SL_20160531_SQUID34_ON_SL6_X.NASL
    description Security Fix(es) : - A buffer overflow flaw was found in the way the Squid cachemgr.cgi utility processed remotely relayed Squid input. When the CGI interface utility is used, a remote attacker could possibly use this flaw to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2016-4051) - Buffer overflow and input validation flaws were found in the way Squid processed ESI responses. If Squid was used as a reverse proxy, or for TLS/HTTPS interception, a remote attacker able to control ESI components on an HTTP server could use these flaws to crash Squid, disclose parts of the stack memory, or possibly execute arbitrary code as the user running Squid. (CVE-2016-4052, CVE-2016-4053, CVE-2016-4054) - An input validation flaw was found in the way Squid handled intercepted HTTP Request messages. An attacker could use this flaw to bypass the protection against issues related to CVE-2009-0801, and perform cache poisoning attacks on Squid. (CVE-2016-4553) - An input validation flaw was found in Squid's mime_get_header_field() function, which is used to search for headers within HTTP requests. An attacker could send an HTTP request from the client side with specially crafted header Host header that bypasses same-origin security protections, causing Squid operating as interception or reverse-proxy to contact the wrong origin server. It could also be used for cache poisoning for client not following RFC 7230. (CVE-2016-4554) - A NULL pointer dereference flaw was found in the way Squid processes ESI responses. If Squid was used as a reverse proxy or for TLS/HTTPS interception, a malicious server could use this flaw to crash the Squid worker process. (CVE-2016-4555) - An incorrect reference counting flaw was found in the way Squid processes ESI responses. If Squid is configured as reverse-proxy, for TLS/HTTPS interception, an attacker controlling a server accessed by Squid, could crash the squid worker, causing a Denial of Service attack. (CVE-2016-4556)
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-12-28
    plugin id 91645
    published 2016-06-17
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=91645
    title Scientific Linux Security Update : squid34 on SL6.x i386/x86_64
  • NASL family Gentoo Local Security Checks
    NASL id GENTOO_GLSA-201309-22.NASL
    description The remote host is affected by the vulnerability described in GLSA-201309-22 (Squid: Multiple vulnerabilities) Multiple vulnerabilities have been discovered in Squid. Please review the CVE identifiers referenced below for details. Impact : A remote attacker may be able to bypass ACL restrictions or cause a Denial of Service condition. Workaround : There is no known workaround at this time.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-11
    plugin id 70182
    published 2013-09-28
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=70182
    title GLSA-201309-22 : Squid: Multiple vulnerabilities
  • NASL family Scientific Linux Local Security Checks
    NASL id SL_20160531_SQUID_ON_SL7_X.NASL
    description Security Fix(es) : - A buffer overflow flaw was found in the way the Squid cachemgr.cgi utility processed remotely relayed Squid input. When the CGI interface utility is used, a remote attacker could possibly use this flaw to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2016-4051) - Buffer overflow and input validation flaws were found in the way Squid processed ESI responses. If Squid was used as a reverse proxy, or for TLS/HTTPS interception, a remote attacker able to control ESI components on an HTTP server could use these flaws to crash Squid, disclose parts of the stack memory, or possibly execute arbitrary code as the user running Squid. (CVE-2016-4052, CVE-2016-4053, CVE-2016-4054) - An input validation flaw was found in the way Squid handled intercepted HTTP Request messages. An attacker could use this flaw to bypass the protection against issues related to CVE-2009-0801, and perform cache poisoning attacks on Squid. (CVE-2016-4553) - An input validation flaw was found in Squid's mime_get_header_field() function, which is used to search for headers within HTTP requests. An attacker could send an HTTP request from the client side with specially crafted header Host header that bypasses same-origin security protections, causing Squid operating as interception or reverse-proxy to contact the wrong origin server. It could also be used for cache poisoning for client not following RFC 7230. (CVE-2016-4554) - A NULL pointer dereference flaw was found in the way Squid processes ESI responses. If Squid was used as a reverse proxy or for TLS/HTTPS interception, a malicious server could use this flaw to crash the Squid worker process. (CVE-2016-4555) - An incorrect reference counting flaw was found in the way Squid processes ESI responses. If Squid is configured as reverse-proxy, for TLS/HTTPS interception, an attacker controlling a server accessed by Squid, could crash the squid worker, causing a Denial of Service attack. (CVE-2016-4556)
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-12-28
    plugin id 91513
    published 2016-06-08
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=91513
    title Scientific Linux Security Update : squid on SL7.x x86_64
refmap via4
bid 33858
cert-vn VU#435052
statements via4
contributor Joshua Bressers
lastmodified 2009-03-09
organization Red Hat
statement Red Hat is aware of this issue and is tracking it via the following bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2009-0801 The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this issue as having low security impact, a future update may address this flaw. More information regarding issue severity can be found here: http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/
Last major update 18-06-2009 - 00:00
Published 04-03-2009 - 11:30
Back to Top