ID CVE-2017-9061
Summary In WordPress before 4.7.5, a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists when attempting to upload very large files, because the error message does not properly restrict presentation of the filename.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • cpe:2.3:a:wordpress:wordpress:4.7.4
    cpe:2.3:a:wordpress:wordpress:4.7.4
CVSS
Base: 4.3
Impact:
Exploitability:
CWE CWE-79
CAPEC
  • Cross Site Scripting through Log Files
    An attacker may leverage a system weakness where logs are susceptible to log injection to insert scripts into the system's logs. If these logs are later viewed by an administrator through a thin administrative interface and the log data is not properly HTML encoded before being written to the page, the attackers' scripts stored in the log will be executed in the administrative interface with potentially serious consequences. This attack pattern is really a combination of two other attack patterns: log injection and stored cross site scripting.
  • Embedding Scripts in Non-Script Elements
    This attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where malicious scripts are embedded in elements that are not expected to host scripts such as image tags (<img>), comments in XML documents (< !-CDATA->), etc. These tags may not be subject to the same input validation, output validation, and other content filtering and checking routines, so this can create an opportunity for an attacker to tunnel through the application's elements and launch a XSS attack through other elements. As with all remote attacks, it is important to differentiate the ability to launch an attack (such as probing an internal network for unpatched servers) and the ability of the remote attacker to collect and interpret the output of said attack.
  • Embedding Scripts within Scripts
    An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute scripts. The attacker leverages this capability to execute scripts to execute his/her own script by embedding it within other scripts that the target software is likely to execute. The attacker must have the ability to inject script into script that is likely to be executed. If this is done, then the attacker can potentially launch a variety of probes and attacks against the web server's local environment, in many cases the so-called DMZ, back end resources the web server can communicate with, and other hosts. With the proliferation of intermediaries, such as Web App Firewalls, network devices, and even printers having JVMs and Web servers, there are many locales where an attacker can inject malicious scripts. Since this attack pattern defines scripts within scripts, there are likely privileges to execute said attack on the host. Of course, these attacks are not solely limited to the server side, client side scripts like Ajax and client side JavaScript can contain malicious scripts as well. In general all that is required is for there to be sufficient privileges to execute a script, but not protected against writing.
  • Cross-Site Scripting in Error Pages
    An attacker distributes a link (or possibly some other query structure) with a request to a third party web server that is malformed and also contains a block of exploit code in order to have the exploit become live code in the resulting error page. When the third party web server receives the crafted request and notes the error it then creates an error message that echoes the malformed message, including the exploit. Doing this converts the exploit portion of the message into to valid language elements that are executed by the viewing browser. When a victim executes the query provided by the attacker the infected error message error message is returned including the exploit code which then runs in the victim's browser. XSS can result in execution of code as well as data leakage (e.g. session cookies can be sent to the attacker). This type of attack is especially dangerous since the exploit appears to come from the third party web server, who the victim may trust and hence be more vulnerable to deception.
  • Cross-Site Scripting Using Alternate Syntax
    The attacker uses alternate forms of keywords or commands that result in the same action as the primary form but which may not be caught by filters. For example, many keywords are processed in a case insensitive manner. If the site's web filtering algorithm does not convert all tags into a consistent case before the comparison with forbidden keywords it is possible to bypass filters (e.g., incomplete black lists) by using an alternate case structure. For example, the "script" tag using the alternate forms of "Script" or "ScRiPt" may bypass filters where "script" is the only form tested. Other variants using different syntax representations are also possible as well as using pollution meta-characters or entities that are eventually ignored by the rendering engine. The attack can result in the execution of otherwise prohibited functionality.
  • Cross-Site Scripting Using MIME Type Mismatch
    An attacker creates a file with scripting content but where the specified MIME type of the file is such that scripting is not expected. Some browsers will detect that the specified MIME type of the file does not match the actual type of the content and will automatically switch to using an interpreter for the real content type. If the browser does not invoke script filters before doing this, the attackers' script may run on the target unsanitized. For example, the MIME type text/plain may be used where the actual content is text/javascript or text/html. Since text does not contain scripting instructions, the stated MIME type would indicate that filtering is unnecessary. However, if the target application subsequently determines the file's real type and invokes the appropriate interpreter, scripted content could be invoked. In another example, img tags in HTML content could reference a renderable type file instead of an expected image file. The file extension and MIME type can describe an image file, but the file content can be text/javascript or text/html resulting in script execution. If the browser assumes all references in img tags are images, and therefore do not need to be filtered for scripts, this would bypass content filters. In a cross-site scripting attack, the attacker tricks the victim into accessing a URL that uploads a script file with an incorrectly specified MIME type. If the victim's browser switches to the appropriate interpreter without filtering, the attack will execute as a standard XSS attack, possibly revealing the victim's cookies or executing arbitrary script in their browser.
  • Cross-Site Scripting in Attributes
    The attacker inserts commands to perform cross-site scripting (XSS) actions in HTML attributes. Many filters do not adequately sanitize attributes against the presence of potentially dangerous commands even if they adequately sanitize tags. For example, dangerous expressions could be inserted into a style attribute in an anchor tag, resulting in the execution of malicious code when the resulting page is rendered. If a victim is tricked into viewing the rendered page the attack proceeds like a normal XSS attack, possibly resulting in the loss of sensitive cookies or other malicious activities.
  • Cross-Site Scripting via Encoded URI Schemes
    An attack of this type exploits the ability of most browsers to interpret "data", "javascript" or other URI schemes as client-side executable content placeholders. This attack consists of passing a malicious URI in an anchor tag HREF attribute or any other similar attributes in other HTML tags. Such malicious URI contains, for example, a base64 encoded HTML content with an embedded cross-site scripting payload. The attack is executed when the browser interprets the malicious content i.e., for example, when the victim clicks on the malicious link.
  • Cross-Site Scripting Using Doubled Characters, e.g. %3C%3Cscript
    The attacker bypasses input validation by using doubled characters in order to perform a cross-site scripting attack. Some filters fail to recognize dangerous sequences if they are preceded by repeated characters. For example, by doubling the < before a script command, (<<script or %3C%3script using URI encoding) the filters of some web applications may fail to recognize the presence of a script tag. If the targeted server is vulnerable to this type of bypass, the attacker can create a crafted URL or other trap to cause a victim to view a page on the targeted server where the malicious content is executed, as per a normal XSS attack.
  • Cross-Site Scripting Using Flash
    An attacker injects malicious script to global parameters in a Flash movie via a crafted URL. The malicious script is executed in the context of the Flash movie. As such, this is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), but the abilities granted to the Flash movie make this attack more flexible.
  • Cross-Site Scripting with Masking through Invalid Characters in Identifiers
    The attacker inserts invalid characters in identifiers to bypass application filtering of input. Filters may not scan beyond invalid characters but during later stages of processing content that follows these invalid characters may still be processed. This allows the attacker to sneak prohibited commands past filters and perform normally prohibited operations. Invalid characters may include null, carriage return, line feed or tab in an identifier. Successful bypassing of the filter can result in a XSS attack, resulting in the disclosure of web cookies or possibly other results.
  • Embedding Scripts in HTTP Query Strings
    A variant of cross-site scripting called "reflected" cross-site scripting, the HTTP Query Strings attack consists of passing a malicious script inside an otherwise valid HTTP request query string. This is of significant concern for sites that rely on dynamic, user-generated content such as bulletin boards, news sites, blogs, and web enabled administration GUIs. The malicious script may steal session data, browse history, probe files, or otherwise execute attacks on the client side. Once the attacker has prepared the malicious HTTP query it is sent to a victim user (perhaps by email, IM, or posted on an online forum), who clicks on a normal looking link that contains a poison query string. This technique can be made more effective through the use of services like http://tinyurl.com/, which makes very small URLs that will redirect to very large, complex ones. The victim will not know what he is really clicking on.
  • Simple Script Injection
    An attacker embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect.
  • AJAX Fingerprinting
    This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. In many XSS attacks the attacker must get a "hole in one" and successfully exploit the vulnerability on the victim side the first time, once the client is redirected the attacker has many chances to engage in follow on probes, but there is only one first chance. In a widely used web application this is not a major problem because 1 in a 1,000 is good enough in a widely used application. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on.
  • Embedding Script (XSS) in HTTP Headers
    An attack of this type exploits web applications that generate web content, such as links in a HTML page, based on unvalidated or improperly validated data submitted by other actors. XSS in HTTP Headers attacks target the HTTP headers which are hidden from most users and may not be validated by web applications.
  • XSS in IMG Tags
    Image tags are an often overlooked, but convenient, means for a Cross Site Scripting attack. The attacker can inject script contents into an image (IMG) tag in order to steal information from a victim's browser and execute malicious scripts.
nessus via4
  • NASL family CGI abuses
    NASL id WORDPRESS_4_7_5.NASL
    description According to its self-reported version number, the WordPress application running on the remote web server is 4.7.x prior to 4.7.5. It is, therefore, affected by multiple vulnerabilities : - A DOM-based cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the uploadSizeError() function within file wp-includes/js/plupload/handlers.js when handling overly large file uploads due to improper validation of user-supplied input to file names before returning it in error messages. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, via a specially crafted request, to execute arbitrary script code in a user's browser session. (CVE-2017-9061) - A flaw exists in the set_custom_fields() function within file wp-includes/class-wp-xmlrpc-server.php when accessing post meta data due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An authenticated, remote attacker can exploit this to gain unauthorized access to meta data. (CVE-2017-9062) - A stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists within file wp-admin/customize.php script due to improper validation of user-supplied input to the blog name before returning it to users. An authenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, via a specially crafted request, to execute arbitrary script code in a user's browser session. (CVE-2017-9063) - A cross-site request forgery (XSRF) vulnerability exists in the request_filesystem_credentials() function within file /wp-admin/includes/file.php due to a failure to require multiple steps, explicit confirmation, or a unique token when performing certain sensitive actions. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this, by convincing a user to follow a specially crafted link, to disclose the user credentials. (CVE-2017-9064) - A flaw exists in the XML-RPC API, specifically within file wp-includes/class-wp-xmlrpc-server.php in the _insert_post() function, when handling post meta data due to a lack of capability checks. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this to manipulate posts without having the required capabilities. (CVE-2017-9065) - A flaw exists in the WP_Http::request() function within file wp-includes/class-http.php due to improper validation of user-supplied iput. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this to redirect the user to a URL of the attacker's choosing. (CVE-2017-9066) Note that Nessus has not tested for these issues but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version number.
    last seen 2018-03-10
    modified 2018-03-09
    plugin id 100298
    published 2017-05-19
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=100298
    title WordPress 4.7.x < 4.7.5 Multiple Vulnerabilities
  • NASL family Debian Local Security Checks
    NASL id DEBIAN_DSA-3870.NASL
    description Several vulnerabilities were discovered in wordpress, a web blogging tool. They would allow remote attackers to force password resets, and perform various cross-site scripting and cross-site request forgery attacks.
    last seen 2018-01-30
    modified 2018-01-29
    plugin id 100561
    published 2017-06-01
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=100561
    title Debian DSA-3870-1 : wordpress - security update
  • NASL family Debian Local Security Checks
    NASL id DEBIAN_DLA-975.NASL
    description Several vulnerabilities were discovered in wordpress, a web blogging tool. The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures project identifies the following issues. CVE-2017-8295 Potential unauthorized password reset vulnerability. More information are available at : https://exploitbox.io/vuln/WordPress-Exploit-4-7-Unauth-Password-Reset -0day-CVE-2017-8295.html CVE-2017-9061 A cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists when someone attempts to upload very large files. CVE-2017-9062 Improper handling of post meta data values in the XML-RPC API. CVE-2017-9063 Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the customizer. CVE-2017-9064 A Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the filesystem credentials dialog. CVE-2017-9065 Lack of capability checks for post meta data in the XML-RPC API. For Debian 7 'Wheezy', these problems have been fixed in version 3.6.1+dfsg-1~deb7u15. We recommend that you upgrade your wordpress packages. NOTE: Tenable Network Security has extracted the preceding description block directly from the DLA security advisory. Tenable has attempted to automatically clean and format it as much as possible without introducing additional issues.
    last seen 2018-01-30
    modified 2018-01-29
    plugin id 100602
    published 2017-06-05
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=100602
    title Debian DLA-975-1 : wordpress security update
refmap via4
bid 98509
confirm
debian DSA-3870
misc https://wpvulndb.com/vulnerabilities/8819
sectrack 1038520
Last major update 18-05-2017 - 10:29
Published 18-05-2017 - 10:29
Last modified 03-11-2017 - 21:29
Back to Top