GHSA-7GHM-RPC7-P7G5

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:16 – Updated: 2022-11-03 23:44
VLAI
Summary
Code injection in Apache Struts
Details

A vulnerability introduced by forcing parameter inclusion in the URL and Anchor Tag allows remote command execution, session access and manipulation and XSS attacks.

both the s:url and s:a tag provide an includeParams attribute.

The main scope of that attribute is to understand whether includes http request parameter or not.

The allowed values of includeParams are:

none - include no parameters in the URL (default)
get - include only GET parameters in the URL
all - include both GET and POST parameters in the URL

A request that included a specially crafted request parameter could be used to inject arbitrary OGNL code into the stack, afterward used as request parameter of an URL or A tag , which will cause a further evaluation.

The second evaluation happens when the URL/A tag tries to resolve every parameters present in the original request. This lets malicious users put arbitrary OGNL statements into any request parameter (not necessarily managed by the code) and have it evaluated as an OGNL expression to enable method execution and execute arbitrary methods, bypassing Struts and OGNL library protections.

The issue was originally addressed by Struts 2.3.14.1 and Security Announcement S2-013. However, the solution introduced with 2.3.14.1 did not address all possible attack vectors, such that every version of Struts 2 before 2.3.14.2 is still vulnerable to such attacks.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.apache.struts:struts2-core"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.3.14.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.apache.struts.xwork:xwork-core"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.3.14.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2013-2115"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-94"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-11-03T23:44:50Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2013-07-10T19:55:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A vulnerability introduced by forcing parameter inclusion in the URL and Anchor Tag allows remote command execution, session access and manipulation and XSS attacks.\n\nboth the s:url and s:a tag provide an includeParams attribute.\n\nThe main scope of that attribute is to understand whether includes http request parameter or not.\n\nThe allowed values of includeParams are:\n\n    none - include no parameters in the URL (default)\n    get - include only GET parameters in the URL\n    all - include both GET and POST parameters in the URL\n\nA request that included a specially crafted request parameter could be used to inject arbitrary OGNL code into the stack, afterward used as request parameter of an URL or A tag , which will cause a further evaluation.\n\nThe second evaluation happens when the URL/A tag tries to resolve every parameters present in the original request.\nThis lets malicious users put arbitrary OGNL statements into any request parameter (not necessarily managed by the code) and have it evaluated as an OGNL expression to enable method execution and execute arbitrary methods, bypassing Struts and OGNL library protections.\n\nThe issue was originally addressed by Struts 2.3.14.1 and Security Announcement [S2-013](https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WW/S2-013). However, the solution introduced with 2.3.14.1 did not address all possible attack vectors, such that every version of Struts 2 before 2.3.14.2 is still vulnerable to such attacks.",
  "id": "GHSA-7ghm-rpc7-p7g5",
  "modified": "2022-11-03T23:44:50Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:16:08Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-2115"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/apache/struts/commit/d7804297e319c7a12245e1b536e565fcea6d650"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/apache/struts/commit/d934c6e7430b7b98e43a0a085a2304bd31a75c3d"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/apache/struts/commit/ea96d18d0f75c390d2595648efa3563785c272c6"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/apache/struts/commit/fed4f8e8a4ec69b5e7612b92d8ce3e476680474"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967656"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WW/S2-013"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WW/S2-014"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/apache/struts"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-4063"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20140212000331/http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/60167"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://struts.apache.org/development/2.x/docs/s2-014.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Code injection in Apache Struts"
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Events included in the timeline

Loading timeline…


    Loading…

    Loading…

    Loading…

    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.