ID CVE-2017-1228
Summary IBM Tivoli Endpoint Manager (IBM BigFix Platform 9.2 and 9.5) could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information, caused by the failure to properly enable the secure cookie attribute. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability to obtain sensitive information using man in the middle techniques. IBM X-Force ID: 123907.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • IBM BigFix Platform 9.2
    cpe:2.3:a:ibm:bigfix_platform:9.2
  • IBM BigFix Platform 9.5
    cpe:2.3:a:ibm:bigfix_platform:9.5
CVSS
Base: 4.3
Impact:
Exploitability:
CWE CWE-200
CAPEC
  • Subverting Environment Variable Values
    The attacker directly or indirectly modifies environment variables used by or controlling the target software. The attacker's goal is to cause the target software to deviate from its expected operation in a manner that benefits the attacker.
  • Footprinting
    An attacker engages in probing and exploration activity to identify constituents and properties of the target. Footprinting is a general term to describe a variety of information gathering techniques, often used by attackers in preparation for some attack. It consists of using tools to learn as much as possible about the composition, configuration, and security mechanisms of the targeted application, system or network. Information that might be collected during a footprinting effort could include open ports, applications and their versions, network topology, and similar information. While footprinting is not intended to be damaging (although certain activities, such as network scans, can sometimes cause disruptions to vulnerable applications inadvertently) it may often pave the way for more damaging attacks.
  • Exploiting Trust in Client (aka Make the Client Invisible)
    An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by placing themselves in the communication channel between client and server such that communication directly to the server is possible where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.
  • Browser Fingerprinting
    An attacker carefully crafts small snippets of Java Script to efficiently detect the type of browser the potential victim is using. Many web-based attacks need prior knowledge of the web browser including the version of browser to ensure successful exploitation of a vulnerability. Having this knowledge allows an attacker to target the victim with attacks that specifically exploit known or zero day weaknesses in the type and version of the browser used by the victim. Automating this process via Java Script as a part of the same delivery system used to exploit the browser is considered more efficient as the attacker can supply a browser fingerprinting method and integrate it with exploit code, all contained in Java Script and in response to the same web page request by the browser.
  • Session Credential Falsification through Prediction
    This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.
  • Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)
    This attack targets the reuse of valid session ID to spoof the target system in order to gain privileges. The attacker tries to reuse a stolen session ID used previously during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking. Another name for this type of attack is Session Replay.
  • Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding
    This attack targets the encoding of the Slash characters. An attacker would try to exploit common filtering problems related to the use of the slashes characters to gain access to resources on the target host. Directory-driven systems, such as file systems and databases, typically use the slash character to indicate traversal between directories or other container components. For murky historical reasons, PCs (and, as a result, Microsoft OSs) choose to use a backslash, whereas the UNIX world typically makes use of the forward slash. The schizophrenic result is that many MS-based systems are required to understand both forms of the slash. This gives the attacker many opportunities to discover and abuse a number of common filtering problems. The goal of this pattern is to discover server software that only applies filters to one version, but not the other.
nessus via4
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. (CVE-2017-1225, CVE-2017-1226) - 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. (CVE-2017-1230) - An information disclosure vulnerability exists as sensitive data is transmitted in cleartext. (CVE-2017-1232) - A cross-site scripting vulnerability allows an attacker to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in WebReports leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. (CVE-2017-1521) 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 2019-01-16
modified 2018-12-21
plugin id 104357
published 2017-11-02
reporter Tenable
source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=104357
title IBM BigFix Platform 9.2.x < 9.2.12 / 9.5.x < 9.5.7 Multiple Vulnerabilities
refmap via4
bid 101571
confirm http://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22009673
misc https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/123907
Last major update 26-10-2017 - 17:29
Published 26-10-2017 - 17:29
Last modified 31-10-2017 - 17:39
Back to Top