CVE-2018-13374
A Improper Access Control in Fortinet FortiOS 6.0.2, 5.6.7 and before, FortiADC 6.1.0, 6.0.0 to 6.0.1, 5.4.0 to 5.4.4 allows attacker to obtain the LDAP server…
Medium
Known exploited
- Severity
- 4.3 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 38.09%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 98.56% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Sep 8, 2022
- Weakness
- CWE-732 Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
- CWE-732 Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Exploited in the wild. Fortinet FortiOS and FortiADC Improper Access Control Vulnerability (Fortinet FortiOS and FortiADC). Required action: Apply updates per vendor instructions. Due for U.S. federal agencies by Sep 29, 2022. Known to be used in ransomware campaigns.
Description
A Improper Access Control in Fortinet FortiOS 6.0.2, 5.6.7 and before, FortiADC 6.1.0, 6.0.0 to 6.0.1, 5.4.0 to 5.4.4 allows attacker to obtain the LDAP server login credentials configured in FortiGate via pointing a LDAP server connectivity test request to a rogue LDAP server instead of the configured one.
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 4.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-732: Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: When using a critical resource such as a configuration file, check to see if the resource has insecure permissions (such as being modifiable by any regular user) [REF-62], and generate an error or even exit the software if there is a possibility that the resource could have been modified by an unauthorized party.
- Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully defining distinct user groups, privileges, and/or roles. Map these against data, functionality, and the related resources. Then set the permissions accordingly. This will allow you to maintain more fine-grained control over your resources. [REF-207]
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Implementation, Installation: During program startup, explicitly set the default permissions or umask to the most restrictive setting possible. Also set the appropriate permissions during program installation. This will prevent you from inheriting insecure permissions from any user who installs or runs the program.
- System Configuration: For all configuration files, executables, and libraries, make sure that they are only readable and writable by the software's administrator.
- Documentation: Do not suggest insecure configuration changes in documentation, especially if those configurations can extend to resources and other programs that are outside the scope of the application.
- Installation: Do not assume that a system administrator will manually change the configuration to the settings that are recommended in the software's manual.
- Operation, System Configuration: Ensure that the software runs properly under the United States Government Configuration Baseline (USGCB) [REF-199] or an equivalent hardening configuration guide, which many organizations use to limit the attack surface and potential risk of deployed software.
- Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to disable public access.
CWE-732: Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: When using a critical resource such as a configuration file, check to see if the resource has insecure permissions (such as being modifiable by any regular user) [REF-62], and generate an error or even exit the software if there is a possibility that the resource could have been modified by an unauthorized party.
- Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully defining distinct user groups, privileges, and/or roles. Map these against data, functionality, and the related resources. Then set the permissions accordingly. This will allow you to maintain more fine-grained control over your resources. [REF-207]
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Implementation, Installation: During program startup, explicitly set the default permissions or umask to the most restrictive setting possible. Also set the appropriate permissions during program installation. This will prevent you from inheriting insecure permissions from any user who installs or runs the program.
- System Configuration: For all configuration files, executables, and libraries, make sure that they are only readable and writable by the software's administrator.
- Documentation: Do not suggest insecure configuration changes in documentation, especially if those configurations can extend to resources and other programs that are outside the scope of the application.
- Installation: Do not assume that a system administrator will manually change the configuration to the settings that are recommended in the software's manual.
- Operation, System Configuration: Ensure that the software runs properly under the United States Government Configuration Baseline (USGCB) [REF-199] or an equivalent hardening configuration guide, which many organizations use to limit the attack surface and potential risk of deployed software.
- Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to disable public access.
References
Advisories
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
- Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-6627-m3xw-93mp filelock: StrictSoftFileLock creates its claim directories without the lock mode, so another local user with a write bit on them can end a live hold | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-732 |
| GHSA-8mx5-7m5m-r77g filelock: WindowsFileLock ignores mode: a 0o600 lock file and the ReadWriteLock database inherit the directory ACL | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-732 |
| GHSA-4596-2p6p-28cv MCP Atlassian: Insecure File Permissions on OAuth Token Storage | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-732 |
| GHSA-98xx-8mx4-x7cm vm2 NodeVM can replace the host process TLS trust store | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-732 |
| GHSA-m5w8-4gq2-6f8x vm2: NodeVM `builtin: ['*']` exposes `os` and `dns` — process-wide observability reads AND writes that hijack the host (sibling class of GHSA-9g8x-92q2-p28f) | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-732 |
| GHSA-945v-v9p3-v5xw rclone local `--metadata` applies attacker-controlled mode/uid - setuid binary planted from an untrusted remote | Low | Same weakness, CWE-732 |
| GHSA-q9pg-jj6x-j9p6 Gitea: draft release attachment disclosure via missing web authorization | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-732 |
| GHSA-3fcv-jvfp-m4q9 Cilium vulnerable to sensitive information disclosure and cluster disruption via local Envoy admin socket access | High | Same weakness, CWE-732 |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor