ID CVE-2012-5498
Summary queryCatalog.py in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote attackers to bypass caching and cause a denial of service via a crafted request to a collection.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • Plone 4.3
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.3
  • Plone 4.2.2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2.2
  • Plone 4.2.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2.1
  • cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2.1.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2.1.1
  • cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2.0.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2.0.1
  • Plone 4.2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2
  • cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2:rc2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2:rc2
  • cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2:rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2:rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2:b2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2:b2
  • cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2:b1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2:b1
  • cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2:a2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2:a2
  • cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2:a1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2:a1
  • Plone 4.1.6
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.1.6
  • Plone 4.1.5
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.1.5
  • Plone 4.1.4
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.1.4
  • Plone 4.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.1
  • Plone 4.0.6.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.0.6.1
  • Plone 4.0.5
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.0.5
  • Plone 4.0.4
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.0.4
  • Plone 4.0.3
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.0.3
  • Plone 4.0.2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.0.2
  • Plone 4.0.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.0.1
  • Plone 4.0
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.0
  • Plone 3.3.5
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.3.5
  • Plone 3.3.4
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.3.4
  • Plone 3.3.3
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.3.3
  • Plone 3.3.2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.3.2
  • Plone 3.3.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.3.1
  • Plone 3.3
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.3
  • Plone 3.2.3
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.2.3
  • Plone 3.2.2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.2.2
  • Plone 3.2.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.2.1
  • Plone 3.2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.2
  • Plone 3.1.7
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.1.7
  • Plone 3.1.6
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.1.6
  • Plone 3.1.5.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.1.5.1
  • Plone 3.1.4
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.1.4
  • Plone 3.1.3
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.1.3
  • Plone 3.1.2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.1.2
  • Plone 3.1.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.1.1
  • Plone 3.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.1
  • Plone 3.0.6
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.0.6
  • Plone 3.0.5
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.0.5
  • Plone 3.0.4
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.0.4
  • Plone 3.0.3
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.0.3
  • Plone 3.0.2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.0.2
  • Plone 3.0.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.0.1
  • Plone 3.0
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:3.0
  • Plone 2.5.5
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.5.5
  • Plone 2.5.4
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.5.4
  • Plone 2.5.3
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.5.3
  • Plone 2.5.2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.5.2
  • Plone 2.5.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.5.1
  • Plone 2.5
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.5
  • Plone 2.1.4
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.1.4
  • Plone 2.1.3
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.1.3
  • Plone 2.1.2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.1.2
  • Plone 2.1.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.1.1
  • Plone 2.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.1
  • Plone 2.0.5
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.0.5
  • Plone 2.0.4
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.0.4
  • Plone 2.0.3
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.0.3
  • Plone 2.0.2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.0.2
  • Plone 2.0.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.0.1
  • Plone 2.0
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:2.0
  • Plone 1.0.6
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:1.0.6
  • Plone 1.0.5
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:1.0.5
  • Plone 1.0.4
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:1.0.4
  • Plone 1.0.3
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:1.0.3
  • Plone 1.0.2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:1.0.2
  • Plone 1.0.1
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:1.0.1
  • Plone 1.0
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:1.0
CVSS
Base: 5.0 (as of 17-11-2015 - 10:10)
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 LOW NONE
Impact
ConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
NONE NONE PARTIAL
nessus via4
  • NASL family Oracle Linux Local Security Checks
    NASL id ORACLELINUX_ELSA-2014-1194.NASL
    description From Red Hat Security Advisory 2014:1194 : Updated conga packages that fix multiple security issues and several bugs are now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. Red Hat Product Security 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. The Conga project is a management system for remote workstations. It consists of luci, which is a secure web-based front end, and ricci, which is a secure daemon that dispatches incoming messages to underlying management modules. It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly protect the administrator interface (control panel). A remote attacker could use this flaw to inject a specially crafted Python statement or script into Plone's restricted Python sandbox that, when the administrator interface was accessed, would be executed with the privileges of that administrator user. (CVE-2012-5485) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly sanitize HTTP headers provided within certain URL requests. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would cause the injected HTTP headers to be returned as a part of the Plone HTTP response, potentially allowing the attacker to perform other more advanced attacks. (CVE-2012-5486) Multiple information leak flaws were found in the way conga processed luci site extension-related URL requests. A remote, unauthenticated attacker could issue a specially crafted HTTP request that, when processed, would result in unauthorized information disclosure. (CVE-2013-6496) It was discovered that various components in the luci site extension-related URLs were not properly restricted to administrative users. A remote, authenticated attacker could escalate their privileges to perform certain actions that should be restricted to administrative users, such as adding users and systems, and viewing log data. (CVE-2014-3521) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly protect the privilege of running RestrictedPython scripts. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would allow the attacker to submit and perform expensive computations or, in conjunction with other attacks, be able to access or alter privileged information. (CVE-2012-5488) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly enforce permissions checks on the membership database. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, could allow the attacker to enumerate user account names. (CVE-2012-5497) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly handle the processing of requests for certain collections. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would lead to excessive I/O and/or cache resource consumption. (CVE-2012-5498) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly handle the processing of very large values passed to an internal utility function. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would lead to excessive memory consumption. (CVE-2012-5499) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, allowed a remote anonymous user to change titles of content items due to improper permissions checks. (CVE-2012-5500) The CVE-2014-3521 issue was discovered by Radek Steiger of Red Hat, and the CVE-2013-6496 issue was discovered by Jan Pokorny of Red Hat. In addition, these updated conga packages include several bug fixes. Space precludes documenting all of these changes in this advisory. Users are directed to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.11 Technical Notes, linked to in the References section, for information on the most significant of these changes All conga users are advised to upgrade to these updated packages, which contain backported patches to correct these issues. After installing this update, the luci and ricci services will be restarted automatically.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2015-12-01
    plugin id 77735
    published 2014-09-18
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=77735
    title Oracle Linux 5 : conga (ELSA-2014-1194)
  • NASL family Scientific Linux Local Security Checks
    NASL id SL_20140916_CONGA_ON_SL5_X.NASL
    description It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly protect the administrator interface (control panel). A remote attacker could use this flaw to inject a specially crafted Python statement or script into Plone's restricted Python sandbox that, when the administrator interface was accessed, would be executed with the privileges of that administrator user. (CVE-2012-5485) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly sanitize HTTP headers provided within certain URL requests. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would cause the injected HTTP headers to be returned as a part of the Plone HTTP response, potentially allowing the attacker to perform other more advanced attacks. (CVE-2012-5486) Multiple information leak flaws were found in the way conga processed luci site extension-related URL requests. A remote, unauthenticated attacker could issue a specially crafted HTTP request that, when processed, would result in unauthorized information disclosure. (CVE-2013-6496) It was discovered that various components in the luci site extension- related URLs were not properly restricted to administrative users. A remote, authenticated attacker could escalate their privileges to perform certain actions that should be restricted to administrative users, such as adding users and systems, and viewing log data. (CVE-2014-3521) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly protect the privilege of running RestrictedPython scripts. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would allow the attacker to submit and perform expensive computations or, in conjunction with other attacks, be able to access or alter privileged information. (CVE-2012-5488) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly enforce permissions checks on the membership database. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, could allow the attacker to enumerate user account names. (CVE-2012-5497) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly handle the processing of requests for certain collections. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would lead to excessive I/O and/or cache resource consumption. (CVE-2012-5498) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly handle the processing of very large values passed to an internal utility function. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would lead to excessive memory consumption. (CVE-2012-5499) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, allowed a remote anonymous user to change titles of content items due to improper permissions checks. (CVE-2012-5500) The CVE-2014-3521 issue was discovered by Radek Steiger of Red Hat, and the CVE-2013-6496 issue was discovered by Jan Pokorny of Red Hat. Users are directed to the Scientific Linux 5.11 Technical Notes, linked to in the References section, for information on the most significant of these changes After installing this update, the luci and ricci services will be restarted automatically.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-12-28
    plugin id 78417
    published 2014-10-14
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=78417
    title Scientific Linux Security Update : conga on SL5.x i386/x86_64
  • NASL family CentOS Local Security Checks
    NASL id CENTOS_RHSA-2014-1194.NASL
    description Updated conga packages that fix multiple security issues and several bugs are now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. Red Hat Product Security 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. The Conga project is a management system for remote workstations. It consists of luci, which is a secure web-based front end, and ricci, which is a secure daemon that dispatches incoming messages to underlying management modules. It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly protect the administrator interface (control panel). A remote attacker could use this flaw to inject a specially crafted Python statement or script into Plone's restricted Python sandbox that, when the administrator interface was accessed, would be executed with the privileges of that administrator user. (CVE-2012-5485) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly sanitize HTTP headers provided within certain URL requests. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would cause the injected HTTP headers to be returned as a part of the Plone HTTP response, potentially allowing the attacker to perform other more advanced attacks. (CVE-2012-5486) Multiple information leak flaws were found in the way conga processed luci site extension-related URL requests. A remote, unauthenticated attacker could issue a specially crafted HTTP request that, when processed, would result in unauthorized information disclosure. (CVE-2013-6496) It was discovered that various components in the luci site extension-related URLs were not properly restricted to administrative users. A remote, authenticated attacker could escalate their privileges to perform certain actions that should be restricted to administrative users, such as adding users and systems, and viewing log data. (CVE-2014-3521) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly protect the privilege of running RestrictedPython scripts. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would allow the attacker to submit and perform expensive computations or, in conjunction with other attacks, be able to access or alter privileged information. (CVE-2012-5488) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly enforce permissions checks on the membership database. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, could allow the attacker to enumerate user account names. (CVE-2012-5497) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly handle the processing of requests for certain collections. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would lead to excessive I/O and/or cache resource consumption. (CVE-2012-5498) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly handle the processing of very large values passed to an internal utility function. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would lead to excessive memory consumption. (CVE-2012-5499) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, allowed a remote anonymous user to change titles of content items due to improper permissions checks. (CVE-2012-5500) The CVE-2014-3521 issue was discovered by Radek Steiger of Red Hat, and the CVE-2013-6496 issue was discovered by Jan Pokorny of Red Hat. In addition, these updated conga packages include several bug fixes. Space precludes documenting all of these changes in this advisory. Users are directed to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.11 Technical Notes, linked to in the References section, for information on the most significant of these changes All conga users are advised to upgrade to these updated packages, which contain backported patches to correct these issues. After installing this update, the luci and ricci services will be restarted automatically.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-10
    plugin id 77989
    published 2014-10-01
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=77989
    title CentOS 5 : conga (CESA-2014:1194)
  • NASL family Red Hat Local Security Checks
    NASL id REDHAT-RHSA-2014-1194.NASL
    description Updated conga packages that fix multiple security issues and several bugs are now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. Red Hat Product Security 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. The Conga project is a management system for remote workstations. It consists of luci, which is a secure web-based front end, and ricci, which is a secure daemon that dispatches incoming messages to underlying management modules. It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly protect the administrator interface (control panel). A remote attacker could use this flaw to inject a specially crafted Python statement or script into Plone's restricted Python sandbox that, when the administrator interface was accessed, would be executed with the privileges of that administrator user. (CVE-2012-5485) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly sanitize HTTP headers provided within certain URL requests. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would cause the injected HTTP headers to be returned as a part of the Plone HTTP response, potentially allowing the attacker to perform other more advanced attacks. (CVE-2012-5486) Multiple information leak flaws were found in the way conga processed luci site extension-related URL requests. A remote, unauthenticated attacker could issue a specially crafted HTTP request that, when processed, would result in unauthorized information disclosure. (CVE-2013-6496) It was discovered that various components in the luci site extension-related URLs were not properly restricted to administrative users. A remote, authenticated attacker could escalate their privileges to perform certain actions that should be restricted to administrative users, such as adding users and systems, and viewing log data. (CVE-2014-3521) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly protect the privilege of running RestrictedPython scripts. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would allow the attacker to submit and perform expensive computations or, in conjunction with other attacks, be able to access or alter privileged information. (CVE-2012-5488) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly enforce permissions checks on the membership database. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, could allow the attacker to enumerate user account names. (CVE-2012-5497) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly handle the processing of requests for certain collections. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would lead to excessive I/O and/or cache resource consumption. (CVE-2012-5498) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, did not properly handle the processing of very large values passed to an internal utility function. A remote attacker could use a specially crafted URL that, when processed, would lead to excessive memory consumption. (CVE-2012-5499) It was discovered that Plone, included as a part of luci, allowed a remote anonymous user to change titles of content items due to improper permissions checks. (CVE-2012-5500) The CVE-2014-3521 issue was discovered by Radek Steiger of Red Hat, and the CVE-2013-6496 issue was discovered by Jan Pokorny of Red Hat. In addition, these updated conga packages include several bug fixes. Space precludes documenting all of these changes in this advisory. Users are directed to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.11 Technical Notes, linked to in the References section, for information on the most significant of these changes All conga users are advised to upgrade to these updated packages, which contain backported patches to correct these issues. After installing this update, the luci and ricci services will be restarted automatically.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-12-13
    plugin id 79049
    published 2014-11-08
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=79049
    title RHEL 5 : conga (RHSA-2014:1194)
redhat via4
advisories
rhsa
id RHSA-2014:1194
rpms
  • luci-0:0.12.2-81.el5
  • ricci-0:0.12.2-81.el5
refmap via4
confirm
mlist [oss-security] 20121109 Re: Re: CVE Request - Zope / Plone: Multiple vectors corrected within 20121106 fix
Last major update 17-11-2015 - 10:17
Published 30-09-2014 - 10:55
Back to Top