CVE-2022-42948
Cobalt Strike 4.7.1 fails to properly escape HTML tags when they are displayed on Swing components.
Critical
Known exploited
- Severity
- 9.8 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 2.71%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 85.96% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Mar 30, 2023
- Weakness
- CWE-116 Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
- CWE-116 Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Exploited in the wild. Fortra Cobalt Strike User Interface Remote Code Execution Vulnerability (Fortra Cobalt Strike). Required action: Apply updates per vendor instructions. Due for U.S. federal agencies by Apr 20, 2023.
Description
Cobalt Strike 4.7.1 fails to properly escape HTML tags when they are displayed on Swing components. By injecting crafted HTML code, it is possible to remotely execute code in the Cobalt Strike UI.
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 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-116: Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error. Alternately, use built-in functions, but consider using wrappers in case those functions are discovered to have a vulnerability.
- Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. For example, stored procedures can enforce database query structure and reduce the likelihood of SQL injection.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
- Architecture and Design: In some cases, input validation may be an important strategy when output encoding is not a complete solution. For example, you may be providing the same output that will be processed by multiple consumers that use different encodings or representations. In other cases, you may be required to allow user-supplied input to contain control information, such as limited HTML tags that support formatting in a wiki or bulletin board. When this type of requirement must be met, use an extremely strict allowlist to limit which control sequences can be used. Verify that the resulting syntactic structure is what you expect. Use your normal encoding methods for the remainder of the input.
- Architecture and Design: Use input validation as a defense-in-depth measure to reduce the likelihood of output encoding errors (see CWE-20).
- Requirements: Fully specify which encodings are required by components that will be communicating with each other.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
CWE-116: Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error. Alternately, use built-in functions, but consider using wrappers in case those functions are discovered to have a vulnerability.
- Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. For example, stored procedures can enforce database query structure and reduce the likelihood of SQL injection.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
- Architecture and Design: In some cases, input validation may be an important strategy when output encoding is not a complete solution. For example, you may be providing the same output that will be processed by multiple consumers that use different encodings or representations. In other cases, you may be required to allow user-supplied input to contain control information, such as limited HTML tags that support formatting in a wiki or bulletin board. When this type of requirement must be met, use an extremely strict allowlist to limit which control sequences can be used. Verify that the resulting syntactic structure is what you expect. Use your normal encoding methods for the remainder of the input.
- Architecture and Design: Use input validation as a defense-in-depth measure to reduce the likelihood of output encoding errors (see CWE-20).
- Requirements: Fully specify which encodings are required by components that will be communicating with each other.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
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-qxg6-89mg-rqv8 Vitest: Code injection via unauthenticated manual mock registration | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
| GHSA-333x-w4r6-6crp fast-uri vulnerable to scheme injection via an unescaped first-segment colon in suffix references | Low | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
| GHSA-xw65-4hp5-5hc7 Handlebars: JavaScript Injection via Unsafe Inline Embedding of Precompiled Templates | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
| GHSA-wx4j-mvgx-mqwp Satori-generated SVG has improper escaping | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
| GHSA-7c7c-373r-gfjj Klever-Go: Elasticsearch bulk / painless injection via on-chain account name -> explorer/indexer data forgery | High | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
| EEF-CVE-2026-82756 ash_authentication_oauth2_server interpolates a tenant-derived value into the WWW-Authenticate challenge without escaping, allowing header parameter injection | Not rated yet | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
| GHSA-qw65-cvwx-89v3 fast-uri vulnerable to authority injection via an unvalidated port in serialize | High | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
| GHSA-6gmq-8vp8-gcm6 xmldom: XML fragment injection via invalid EntityReference.nodeName during requireWellFormed serialization | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-116 |
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