ID CVE-2011-2753
Summary Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in SquirrelMail 1.4.21 and earlier allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via vectors involving (1) the empty trash implementation and (2) the Index Order (aka options_order) page, a different issue than CVE-2010-4555.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • SquirrelMail 0.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.1
  • SquirrelMail 0.2.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.2.1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.3.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.3.1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.3pre2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.3pre2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.3pre1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.3pre1
  • SquirrelMail 0.4
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.4
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.17
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.17
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.1.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.1.2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.1.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.1.1
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.13
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.13
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.15 Release Candidate 1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.15:rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.15rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.15rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3:r3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3:r3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0:rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0:rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0:rc2a
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0:rc2a
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.19
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.19
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.0:rc3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.0:rc3
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.6 Release Candidate 1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.6:rc1
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.18
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.18
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.3 Release Candidate 1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3:rc1
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.4 Release Candidate 1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.4:rc1
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.16
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.16
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.10
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.10
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.3.0
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.3.0
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.3.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.3.2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.3.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.3.1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.0
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.0
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0pre1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0pre1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0pre2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0pre2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0pre3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0pre3
  • SquirrelMail 1.0
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0
  • SquirrelMail 1.0.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.1
  • SquirrelMail 1.0.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.2
  • SquirrelMail 1.0.3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.3
  • SquirrelMail 1.0.6
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.6
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.5pre1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.5pre1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.5pre2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.5pre2
  • SquirrelMail 0.5
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.5
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.4pre1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.4pre1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.4pre2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.4pre2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.6:rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.6:rc1
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.5 Release Candidate 1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.5:rc1
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.20 -
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.20
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.12
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.12
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.11
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.11
  • SquirrelMail 1.0.5
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.5
  • SquirrelMail 1.0.4
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.4
  • SquirrelMail 1.2.0
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.0
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0-r1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0-r1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r5
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r5
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r4
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r4
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.15 -
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.15
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.9
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.9
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.8.4fc6
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.8.4fc6
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.8
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.8
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.7
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.7
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.6_cvs
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.6_cvs
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.6 -
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.6
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.5 -
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.5
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.4 -
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.4
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3aa
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3aa
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3a
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3a
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.3 -
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.10a
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.10a
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.0
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0
  • SquirrelMail 1.2.9
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.9
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4
  • SquirrelMail 1.2.7
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.7
  • SquirrelMail 1.2.8
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.8
  • SquirrelMail 1.2.5
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.5
  • SquirrelMail 1.2.6
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.6
  • SquirrelMail 1.2.3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.3
  • SquirrelMail 1.2.4
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.4
  • SquirrelMail 1.2.11
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.11
  • SquirrelMail 1.2.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.2
  • SquirrelMail 1.2.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.1
  • SquirrelMail 1.2.10
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.10
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4:rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4:rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.9a
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.9a
  • SquirrelMail 1.4.21
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.21
CVSS
Base: 6.8 (as of 18-07-2011 - 10:41)
Impact:
Exploitability:
CWE CWE-352
CAPEC
  • JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking)
    An attacker targets a system that uses JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as a transport mechanism between the client and the server (common in Web 2.0 systems using AJAX) to steal possibly confidential information transmitted from the server back to the client inside the JSON object by taking advantage of the loophole in the browser's Same Origin Policy that does not prohibit JavaScript from one website to be included and executed in the context of another website. An attacker gets the victim to visit his or her malicious page that contains a script tag whose source points to the vulnerable system with a URL that requests a response from the server containing a JSON object with possibly confidential information. The malicious page also contains malicious code to capture the JSON object returned by the server before any other processing on it can take place, typically by overriding the JavaScript function used to create new objects. This hook allows the malicious code to get access to the creation of each object and transmit the possibly sensitive contents of the captured JSON object to the attackers' server. There is nothing in the browser's security model to prevent the attackers' malicious JavaScript code (originating from attacker's domain) to set up an environment (as described above) to intercept a JSON object response (coming from the vulnerable target system's domain), read its contents and transmit to the attackers' controlled site. The same origin policy protects the domain object model (DOM), but not the JSON.
  • Cross-Domain Search Timing
    An attacker initiates cross domain HTTP / GET requests and times the server responses. The timing of these responses may leak important information on what is happening on the server. Browser's same origin policy prevents the attacker from directly reading the server responses (in the absence of any other weaknesses), but does not prevent the attacker from timing the responses to requests that the attacker issued cross domain. For GET requests an attacker could for instance leverage the "img" tag in conjunction with "onload() / onerror()" javascript events. For the POST requests, an attacker could leverage the "iframe" element and leverage the "onload()" event. There is nothing in the current browser security model that prevents an attacker to use these methods to time responses to the attackers' cross domain requests. The timing for these responses leaks information. For instance, if a victim has an active session with their online e-mail account, an attacker could issue search requests in the victim's mailbox. While the attacker is not able to view the responses, based on the timings of the responses, the attacker could ask yes / no questions as to the content of victim's e-mails, who the victim e-mailed, when, etc. This is but one example; There are other scenarios where an attacker could infer potentially sensitive information from cross domain requests by timing the responses while asking the right questions that leak information.
  • Cross Site Identification
    An attacker harvests identifying information about a victim via an active session that the victim's browser has with a social networking site. A victim may have the social networking site open in one tab or perhaps is simply using the "remember me" feature to keep his or her session with the social networking site active. An attacker induces a payload to execute in the victim's browser that transparently to the victim initiates a request to the social networking site (e.g., via available social network site APIs) to retrieve identifying information about a victim. While some of this information may be public, the attacker is able to harvest this information in context and may use it for further attacks on the user (e.g., spear phishing). In one example of an attack, an attacker may post a malicious posting that contains an image with an embedded link. The link actually requests identifying information from the social networking site. A victim who views the malicious posting in his or her browser will have sent identifying information to the attacker, as long as the victim had an active session with the social networking site. There are many other ways in which the attacker may get the payload to execute in the victim's browser mainly by finding a way to hide it in some reputable site that the victim visits. The attacker could also send the link to the victim in an e-mail and trick the victim into clicking on the link. This attack is basically a cross site request forgery attack with two main differences. First, there is no action that is performed on behalf of the user aside from harvesting information. So standard CSRF protection may not work in this situation. Second, what is important in this attack pattern is the nature of the data being harvested, which is identifying information that can be obtained and used in context. This real time harvesting of identifying information can be used as a prelude for launching real time targeted social engineering attacks on the victim.
  • Cross Site Request Forgery (aka Session Riding)
    An attacker crafts malicious web links and distributes them (via web pages, email, etc.), typically in a targeted manner, hoping to induce users to click on the link and execute the malicious action against some third-party application. If successful, the action embedded in the malicious link will be processed and accepted by the targeted application with the users' privilege level. This type of attack leverages the persistence and implicit trust placed in user session cookies by many web applications today. In such an architecture, once the user authenticates to an application and a session cookie is created on the user's system, all following transactions for that session are authenticated using that cookie including potential actions initiated by an attacker and simply "riding" the existing session cookie.
Access
VectorComplexityAuthentication
NETWORK MEDIUM NONE
Impact
ConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
PARTIAL PARTIAL PARTIAL
nessus via4
  • NASL family Red Hat Local Security Checks
    NASL id REDHAT-RHSA-2012-0103.NASL
    description An updated squirrelmail package that fixes several security issues is now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 and 5. The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this update as having moderate security impact. Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base scores, which give detailed severity ratings, are available for each vulnerability from the CVE links in the References section. SquirrelMail is a standards-based webmail package written in PHP. A cross-site scripting (XSS) flaw was found in the way SquirrelMail performed the sanitization of HTML style tag content. A remote attacker could use this flaw to send a specially crafted Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) message that, when opened by a victim, would lead to arbitrary web script execution in the context of their SquirrelMail session. (CVE-2011-2023) Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) flaws were found in SquirrelMail. A remote attacker could possibly use these flaws to execute arbitrary web script in the context of a victim's SquirrelMail session. (CVE-2010-4555) An input sanitization flaw was found in the way SquirrelMail handled the content of various HTML input fields. A remote attacker could use this flaw to alter user preference values via a newline character contained in the input for these fields. (CVE-2011-2752) It was found that the SquirrelMail Empty Trash and Index Order pages did not protect against Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. If a remote attacker could trick a user, who was logged into SquirrelMail, into visiting a specially crafted URL, the attacker could empty the victim's trash folder or alter the ordering of the columns on the message index page. (CVE-2011-2753) SquirrelMail was allowed to be loaded into an HTML sub-frame, allowing a remote attacker to perform a clickjacking attack against logged in users and possibly gain access to sensitive user data. With this update, the SquirrelMail main frame can only be loaded into the top most browser frame. (CVE-2010-4554) A flaw was found in the way SquirrelMail handled failed log in attempts. A user preference file was created when attempting to log in with a password containing an 8-bit character, even if the username was not valid. A remote attacker could use this flaw to eventually consume all hard disk space on the target SquirrelMail server. (CVE-2010-2813) A flaw was found in the SquirrelMail Mail Fetch plug-in. If an administrator enabled this plug-in, a SquirrelMail user could use this flaw to port scan the local network the server was on. (CVE-2010-1637) Users of SquirrelMail should upgrade to this updated package, which contains backported patches to correct these issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-26
    plugin id 57870
    published 2012-02-09
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=57870
    title RHEL 4 / 5 : squirrelmail (RHSA-2012:0103)
  • NASL family Debian Local Security Checks
    NASL id DEBIAN_DSA-2291.NASL
    description Various vulnerabilities have been found in SquirrelMail, a webmail application. The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures project identifies the following vulnerabilities : - CVE-2010-4554 SquirrelMail did not prevent page rendering inside a third-party HTML frame, which makes it easier for remote attackers to conduct clickjacking attacks via a crafted website. - CVE-2010-4555, CVE-2011-2752, CVE-2011-2753 Multiple small bugs in SquirrelMail allowed an attacker to inject malicious script into various pages or alter the contents of user preferences. - CVE-2011-2023 It was possible to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted STYLE element in an HTML part of an e-mail message.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-10
    plugin id 55776
    published 2011-08-09
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=55776
    title Debian DSA-2291-1 : squirrelmail - various vulnerabilities
  • NASL family CentOS Local Security Checks
    NASL id CENTOS_RHSA-2012-0103.NASL
    description An updated squirrelmail package that fixes several security issues is now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 and 5. The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this update as having moderate security impact. Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base scores, which give detailed severity ratings, are available for each vulnerability from the CVE links in the References section. SquirrelMail is a standards-based webmail package written in PHP. A cross-site scripting (XSS) flaw was found in the way SquirrelMail performed the sanitization of HTML style tag content. A remote attacker could use this flaw to send a specially crafted Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) message that, when opened by a victim, would lead to arbitrary web script execution in the context of their SquirrelMail session. (CVE-2011-2023) Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) flaws were found in SquirrelMail. A remote attacker could possibly use these flaws to execute arbitrary web script in the context of a victim's SquirrelMail session. (CVE-2010-4555) An input sanitization flaw was found in the way SquirrelMail handled the content of various HTML input fields. A remote attacker could use this flaw to alter user preference values via a newline character contained in the input for these fields. (CVE-2011-2752) It was found that the SquirrelMail Empty Trash and Index Order pages did not protect against Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. If a remote attacker could trick a user, who was logged into SquirrelMail, into visiting a specially crafted URL, the attacker could empty the victim's trash folder or alter the ordering of the columns on the message index page. (CVE-2011-2753) SquirrelMail was allowed to be loaded into an HTML sub-frame, allowing a remote attacker to perform a clickjacking attack against logged in users and possibly gain access to sensitive user data. With this update, the SquirrelMail main frame can only be loaded into the top most browser frame. (CVE-2010-4554) A flaw was found in the way SquirrelMail handled failed log in attempts. A user preference file was created when attempting to log in with a password containing an 8-bit character, even if the username was not valid. A remote attacker could use this flaw to eventually consume all hard disk space on the target SquirrelMail server. (CVE-2010-2813) A flaw was found in the SquirrelMail Mail Fetch plug-in. If an administrator enabled this plug-in, a SquirrelMail user could use this flaw to port scan the local network the server was on. (CVE-2010-1637) Users of SquirrelMail should upgrade to this updated package, which contains backported patches to correct these issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-10
    plugin id 57864
    published 2012-02-09
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=57864
    title CentOS 4 / 5 : squirrelmail (CESA-2012:0103)
  • NASL family Scientific Linux Local Security Checks
    NASL id SL_20120208_SQUIRRELMAIL_ON_SL4_X.NASL
    description SquirrelMail is a standards-based webmail package written in PHP. A cross-site scripting (XSS) flaw was found in the way SquirrelMail performed the sanitization of HTML style tag content. A remote attacker could use this flaw to send a specially crafted Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) message that, when opened by a victim, would lead to arbitrary web script execution in the context of their SquirrelMail session. (CVE-2011-2023) Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) flaws were found in SquirrelMail. A remote attacker could possibly use these flaws to execute arbitrary web script in the context of a victim's SquirrelMail session. (CVE-2010-4555) An input sanitization flaw was found in the way SquirrelMail handled the content of various HTML input fields. A remote attacker could use this flaw to alter user preference values via a newline character contained in the input for these fields. (CVE-2011-2752) It was found that the SquirrelMail Empty Trash and Index Order pages did not protect against Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. If a remote attacker could trick a user, who was logged into SquirrelMail, into visiting a specially crafted URL, the attacker could empty the victim's trash folder or alter the ordering of the columns on the message index page. (CVE-2011-2753) SquirrelMail was allowed to be loaded into an HTML sub-frame, allowing a remote attacker to perform a clickjacking attack against logged in users and possibly gain access to sensitive user data. With this update, the SquirrelMail main frame can only be loaded into the top most browser frame. (CVE-2010-4554) A flaw was found in the way SquirrelMail handled failed log in attempts. A user preference file was created when attempting to log in with a password containing an 8-bit character, even if the username was not valid. A remote attacker could use this flaw to eventually consume all hard disk space on the target SquirrelMail server. (CVE-2010-2813) A flaw was found in the SquirrelMail Mail Fetch plug-in. If an administrator enabled this plug-in, a SquirrelMail user could use this flaw to port scan the local network the server was on. (CVE-2010-1637) Users of SquirrelMail should upgrade to this updated package, which contains backported patches to correct these issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-12-31
    plugin id 61240
    published 2012-08-01
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=61240
    title Scientific Linux Security Update : squirrelmail on SL4.x, SL5.x
  • NASL family Oracle Linux Local Security Checks
    NASL id ORACLELINUX_ELSA-2012-0103.NASL
    description From Red Hat Security Advisory 2012:0103 : An updated squirrelmail package that fixes several security issues is now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 and 5. The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this update as having moderate security impact. Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base scores, which give detailed severity ratings, are available for each vulnerability from the CVE links in the References section. SquirrelMail is a standards-based webmail package written in PHP. A cross-site scripting (XSS) flaw was found in the way SquirrelMail performed the sanitization of HTML style tag content. A remote attacker could use this flaw to send a specially crafted Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) message that, when opened by a victim, would lead to arbitrary web script execution in the context of their SquirrelMail session. (CVE-2011-2023) Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) flaws were found in SquirrelMail. A remote attacker could possibly use these flaws to execute arbitrary web script in the context of a victim's SquirrelMail session. (CVE-2010-4555) An input sanitization flaw was found in the way SquirrelMail handled the content of various HTML input fields. A remote attacker could use this flaw to alter user preference values via a newline character contained in the input for these fields. (CVE-2011-2752) It was found that the SquirrelMail Empty Trash and Index Order pages did not protect against Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. If a remote attacker could trick a user, who was logged into SquirrelMail, into visiting a specially crafted URL, the attacker could empty the victim's trash folder or alter the ordering of the columns on the message index page. (CVE-2011-2753) SquirrelMail was allowed to be loaded into an HTML sub-frame, allowing a remote attacker to perform a clickjacking attack against logged in users and possibly gain access to sensitive user data. With this update, the SquirrelMail main frame can only be loaded into the top most browser frame. (CVE-2010-4554) A flaw was found in the way SquirrelMail handled failed log in attempts. A user preference file was created when attempting to log in with a password containing an 8-bit character, even if the username was not valid. A remote attacker could use this flaw to eventually consume all hard disk space on the target SquirrelMail server. (CVE-2010-2813) A flaw was found in the SquirrelMail Mail Fetch plug-in. If an administrator enabled this plug-in, a SquirrelMail user could use this flaw to port scan the local network the server was on. (CVE-2010-1637) Users of SquirrelMail should upgrade to this updated package, which contains backported patches to correct these issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-18
    plugin id 68452
    published 2013-07-12
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=68452
    title Oracle Linux 4 / 5 : squirrelmail (ELSA-2012-0103)
redhat via4
advisories
bugzilla
id 722832
title CVE-2011-2753 SquirrelMail: CSRF in the empty trash feature and in Index Order page
oval
OR
  • AND
    • comment Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 is installed
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhba:tst:20070304001
    • comment squirrelmail is earlier than 0:1.4.8-18.el4
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20120103002
    • comment squirrelmail is signed with Red Hat master key
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20070022003
  • AND
    • comment Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 is installed
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhba:tst:20070331001
    • comment squirrelmail is earlier than 0:1.4.8-5.el5_7.13
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20120103005
    • comment squirrelmail is signed with Red Hat redhatrelease key
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20070358008
rhsa
id RHSA-2012:0103
released 2012-02-08
severity Moderate
title RHSA-2012:0103: squirrelmail security update (Moderate)
rpms
  • squirrelmail-0:1.4.8-18.el4
  • squirrelmail-0:1.4.8-5.el5_7.13
refmap via4
confirm
debian DSA-2291
mandriva MDVSA-2011:123
xf squirrelmail-authentication-csrf(68586)
Last major update 13-02-2012 - 23:07
Published 17-07-2011 - 16:55
Last modified 28-08-2017 - 21:29
Back to Top