ID CVE-2012-5500
Summary The batch id change script (renameObjectsByPaths.py) in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote attackers to change the titles of content items by leveraging a valid CSRF token in a crafted request.
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
  • Plone 4.2
    cpe:2.3:a:plone:plone:4.2
  • 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: 4.3 (as of 04-11-2014 - 22:09)
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
NONE PARTIAL NONE
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 04-11-2014 - 22:09
Published 03-11-2014 - 17:55
Back to Top