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.
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.
|NASL family||Web Servers |
|NASL id||IBM_TEM_9_5_7.NASL |
|description||According to its self-reported version, the IBM BigFix Platform application running on the remote host is 9.2.x prior to 9.2.12, or 9.5.x prior to 9.5.7. It is, therefore, affected by multiple vulnerabilities :
- An unspecified cross-site request forgery (XSRF) vulnerability allows an attacker to execute malicious and unauthorized actions transmitted from a user that the website trusts. (CVE-2017-1218)
- An unspecified flaw allows the disclosure of sensitive information to unauthorized users. (CVE-2017-1220)
- A failure to perform an authentication check for a critical resource or functionality allowing anonymous users access to protected areas. (CVE-2017-1222)
- An information disclosure vulnerability exists due to sensitive information in URL parameters being stored in server logs, referrer headers and browser history.
- An information disclosure vulnerability exists due to a failure to properly enable the secure cookie attribute. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability to obtain sensitive information using man in the middle techniques. (CVE-2017-1228)
- An information disclosure vulnerability exists due to the use of insufficiently random numbers in a security context that depends on unpredictable numbers. This weakness allows attackers to expose sensitive information by guessing tokens or identifiers.
- An information disclosure vulnerability exists as sensitive data is transmitted in cleartext.
IBM BigFix Platform was formerly known as Tivoli Endpoint Manager, IBM Endpoint Manager, and IBM BigFix Endpoint Manager.
Note that Nessus has not tested for these issues but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version number. |
|last seen||2019-02-21 |
|plugin id||104357 |
|title||IBM BigFix Platform 9.2.x < 9.2.12 / 9.5.x < 9.5.7 Multiple Vulnerabilities |