ID CVE-2017-5823
Summary A Remote Code Execution vulnerability in HPE Intelligent Management Center (iMC) PLAT version 7.3 E0504P04 was found.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 5.0
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:5.0
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 5.0 E0101
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:5.0:e0101
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 5.0 E0101H03
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:5.0:e0101h03
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 5.0 E0101H04
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:5.0:e0101h04
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 5.0 E0101L01
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:5.0:e0101l01
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 5.0 E0101L02
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:5.0:e0101l02
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 5.1
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:5.1
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 5.1 E0101P01
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:5.1:e0101p01
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 5.2
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:5.2
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 7.0
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:7.0
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 7.0 E02020P03
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:7.0:e02020p03
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 7.2 E0403
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:7.2:e0403
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 7.2 E0403l01
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:7.2:e0403l01
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 7.2 E0403l02
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:7.2:e0403l02
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 7.2 E0403l09
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:7.2:e0403l09
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 7.2 E0403p03
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:7.2:e0403p03
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 7.2 E0403p04
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:7.2:e0403p04
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 7.2 E0403p06
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:7.2:e0403p06
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 7.2 E0403p10
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:7.2:e0403p10
  • HP Intelligent Management Center 7.3
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:7.3
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 7.3 E0503P02
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:7.3:e0503p02
  • HP Intelligent Management Center (IMC) 7.3 E0504P02
    cpe:2.3:a:hp:intelligent_management_center:7.3:e0504p02
CVSS
Base: 10.0
Impact:
Exploitability:
CWE CWE-77
CAPEC
  • Cause Web Server Misclassification
    An attack of this type exploits a Web server's decision to take action based on filename or file extension. Because different file types are handled by different server processes, misclassification may force the Web server to take unexpected action, or expected actions in an unexpected sequence. This may cause the server to exhaust resources, supply debug or system data to the attacker, or bind an attacker to a remote process. This type of vulnerability has been found in many widely used servers including IIS, Lotus Domino, and Orion. The attacker's job in this case is straightforward, standard communication protocols and methods are used and are generally appended with malicious information at the tail end of an otherwise legitimate request. The attack payload varies, but it could be special characters like a period or simply appending a tag that has a special meaning for operations on the server side like .jsp for a java application server. The essence of this attack is that the attacker deceives the server into executing functionality based on the name of the request, i.e. login.jsp, not the contents.
  • LDAP Injection
    An attacker manipulates or crafts an LDAP query for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. Some applications use user input to create LDAP queries that are processed by an LDAP server. For example, a user might provide their username during authentication and the username might be inserted in an LDAP query during the authentication process. An attacker could use this input to inject additional commands into an LDAP query that could disclose sensitive information. For example, entering a * in the aforementioned query might return information about all users on the system. This attack is very similar to an SQL injection attack in that it manipulates a query to gather additional information or coerce a particular return value.
  • Command Delimiters
    An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or a blacklist input validation, as opposed to whitelist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or blacklist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.
  • File System Function Injection, Content Based
    An attack of this type exploits the host's trust in executing remote content including binary files. The files are poisoned with a malicious payload (targeting the file systems accessible by the target software) by the attacker and may be passed through standard channels such as via email, and standard web content like PDF and multimedia files. The attacker exploits known vulnerabilities or handling routines in the target processes. Vulnerabilities of this type have been found in a wide variety of commercial applications from Microsoft Office to Adobe Acrobat and Apple Safari web browser. When the attacker knows the standard handling routines and can identify vulnerabilities and entry points they can be exploited by otherwise seemingly normal content. Once the attack is executed, the attackers' program can access relative directories such as C:\Program Files or other standard system directories to launch further attacks. In a worst case scenario, these programs are combined with other propagation logic and work as a virus.
  • Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
    An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
  • Argument Injection
    An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.
  • Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files
    Generally these are manually edited files that are not in the preview of the system administrators, any ability on the attackers' behalf to modify these files, for example in a CVS repository, gives unauthorized access directly to the application, the same as authorized users.
  • 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.
nessus via4
  • NASL family Windows
    NASL id HP_INTELLIGENT_MANAGEMENT_CENTER_7_3_E0504P04.NASL
    description The version of HPE Intelligent Management Center (iMC) PLAT installed on the Windows host is prior to 7.3 E0504P04. It is, therefore, affected by multiple vulnerabilities : - An unspecified flaw exists that allows an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-5815) - A command injection vulnerability exists in the dbman service due to improper validation of user-supplied input before it is passed to a system call. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, via a specially crafted opcode 10008 request, to inject and execute arbitrary OS commands with SYSTEM privileges. (CVE-2017-5816) - Multiple command injection vulnerabilities exist in the dbman service due to improper validation of user-supplied input before it is passed to a system call. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit these, via a specially crafted opcode 10007 request, to inject and execute arbitrary OS commands with SYSTEM privileges. (CVE-2017-5817, CVE-2017-5819) - A flaw exists in the dbman service when handling opcode 10007 requests due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, via a specially crafted request, to delete arbitrary files with SYSTEM privileges. (CVE-2017-5818) - A flaw exists in the dbman service when handling opcode 10004 requests due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, via a specially crafted request, to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-5820) - A flaw exists in the dbman service when handling opcode 10006 and 10010 requests due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, via a specially request, to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-5821) - A flaw exists in the dbman service when handling opcode 10010 requests due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, via a specially crafted request, to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-5822) - A flaw exists in the dbman service when handling opcode 10013 requests due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, via a specially crafted request, to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-5823) - A NULL pointer deference flaw exists, specifically in the asn1_item_embed_d2i() function within file crypto/asn1/tasn_dec.c, when handling the ASN.1 CHOICE type, which results in a NULL value being passed to the structure callback if an attempt is made to free certain invalid encodings. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this to cause a denial of service condition. (CVE-2016-7053) - A heap overflow condition exists in the chacha20_poly1305_cipher() function within file crypto/evp/e_chacha20_poly1305.c when handling TLS connections using *-CHACHA20-POLY1305 cipher suites. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this to cause a denial of service condition. (CVE-2016-7054) - A carry propagation error exists in the Broadwell-specific Montgomery multiplication procedure when handling input lengths divisible by but longer than 256 bits. This can result in transient authentication and key negotiation failures or reproducible erroneous outcomes of public-key operations with specially crafted input. A man-in-the-middle attacker can possibly exploit this issue to compromise ECDH key negotiations that utilize Brainpool P-512 curves. (CVE-2016-7055) - An unspecified remote code execution vulnerability exists that allows an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-8948) - A stack-based buffer overflow condition exists due to improper validation of input when copying data. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this to cause a denial of service condition or the execution of arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-8956) Note that Intelligent Management Center (iMC) is an HPE product; however, it is branded as H3C.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-15
    plugin id 100869
    published 2017-06-19
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=100869
    title H3C / HPE Intelligent Management Center PLAT < 7.3 E0504P04 Multiple Vulnerabilities
  • NASL family Misc.
    NASL id HP_IMC_73_E0504P04.NASL
    description The version of HPE Intelligent Management Center (iMC) PLAT installed on the remote host is prior to 7.3 E0504P04. It is, therefore, affected by multiple vulnerabilities : - A NULL pointer deference flaw exists, specifically in the asn1_item_embed_d2i() function within file crypto/asn1/tasn_dec.c, when handling the ASN.1 CHOICE type, which results in a NULL value being passed to the structure callback if an attempt is made to free certain invalid encodings. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this to cause a denial of service condition. (CVE-2016-7053) - A heap overflow condition exists in the chacha20_poly1305_cipher() function within file crypto/evp/e_chacha20_poly1305.c when handling TLS connections using *-CHACHA20-POLY1305 cipher suites. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this to cause a denial of service condition. (CVE-2016-7054) - A carry propagation error exists in the Broadwell-specific Montgomery multiplication procedure when handling input lengths divisible by but longer than 256 bits. This can result in transient authentication and key negotiation failures or reproducible erroneous outcomes of public-key operations with specially crafted input. A man-in-the-middle attacker can possibly exploit this issue to compromise ECDH key negotiations that utilize Brainpool P-512 curves. (CVE-2016-7055) - An unspecified flaw exists that allows an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-5815) - A command injection vulnerability exists in the dbman service due to improper validation of user-supplied input before it is passed to a system call. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, via a specially crafted opcode 10008 request, to inject and execute arbitrary OS commands with SYSTEM privileges. (CVE-2017-5816) - Multiple command injection vulnerabilities exist in the dbman service due to improper validation of user-supplied input before it is passed to a system call. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit these, via a specially crafted opcode 10007 request, to inject and execute arbitrary OS commands with SYSTEM privileges. (CVE-2017-5817, CVE-2017-5819) - A flaw exists in the dbman service when handling opcode 10007 requests due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, via a specially crafted request, to delete arbitrary files with SYSTEM privileges. (CVE-2017-5818) - A flaw exists in the dbman service when handling opcode 10004 requests due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, via a specially crafted request, to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-5820) - A flaw exists in the dbman service when handling opcode 10006 and 10010 requests due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, via a specially request, to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-5821) - A flaw exists in the dbman service when handling opcode 10010 requests due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, via a specially crafted request, to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-5822) - A flaw exists in the dbman service when handling opcode 10013 requests due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, via a specially crafted request, to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-5823) - An unspecified remote code execution vulnerability exists that allows an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-8948) - A stack-based buffer overflow condition exists due to improper validation of input when copying data. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this to cause a denial of service condition or the execution of arbitrary code. (CVE-2017-8956) Note that Intelligent Management Center (iMC) is an HPE product; however, it is branded as H3C.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-15
    plugin id 100868
    published 2017-06-19
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=100868
    title H3C / HPE Intelligent Management Center PLAT < 7.3 E0504P04 Multiple Vulnerabilities
refmap via4
confirm https://support.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docId=emr_na-hpesbhf03746en_us
sectrack 1038560
Last major update 15-02-2018 - 17:29
Published 15-02-2018 - 17:29
Last modified 24-02-2018 - 11:38
Back to Top