CVE-2022-46169
Cacti is an open source platform which provides a robust and extensible operational monitoring and fault management framework for users.
- Severity
- 9.8 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 99.83%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.96% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Feb 16, 2023
- Weakness
- CWE-74 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')
- CWE-78 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Cacti is an open source platform which provides a robust and extensible operational monitoring and fault management framework for users. In affected versions a command injection vulnerability allows an unauthenticated user to execute arbitrary code on a server running Cacti, if a specific data source was selected for any monitored device. The vulnerability resides in the remote_agent.php file. This file can be accessed without authentication. This function retrieves the IP address of the client via get_client_addr and resolves this IP address to the corresponding hostname via gethostbyaddr. After this, it is verified that an entry within the poller table exists, where the hostname corresponds to the resolved hostname. If such an entry was found, the function returns true and the client is authorized. This authorization can be bypassed due to the implementation of the get_client_addr function. The function is defined in the file lib/functions.php and checks serval $_SERVER variables to determine the IP address of the client. The variables beginning with HTTP_ can be arbitrarily set by an attacker. Since there is a default entry in the poller table with the hostname of the server running Cacti, an attacker can bypass the authentication e.g. by providing the header Forwarded-For: <TARGETIP>. This way the function get_client_addr returns the IP address of the server running Cacti. The following call to gethostbyaddr will resolve this IP address to the hostname of the server, which will pass the poller hostname check because of the default entry. After the authorization of the remote_agent.php file is bypassed, an attacker can trigger different actions. One of these actions is called polldata. The called function poll_for_data retrieves a few request parameters and loads the corresponding poller_item entries from the database. If the action of a poller_item equals POLLER_ACTION_SCRIPT_PHP, the function proc_open is used to execute a PHP script. The attacker-controlled parameter $poller_id is retrieved via the function get_nfilter_request_var, which allows arbitrary strings. This variable is later inserted into the string passed to proc_open, which leads to a command injection vulnerability. By e.g. providing the poller_id=;id the id command is executed. In order to reach the vulnerable call, the attacker must provide a host_id and local_data_id, where the action of the corresponding poller_item is set to POLLER_ACTION_SCRIPT_PHP. Both of these ids (host_id and local_data_id) can easily be bruteforced. The only requirement is that a poller_item with an POLLER_ACTION_SCRIPT_PHP action exists. This is very likely on a productive instance because this action is added by some predefined templates like Device - Uptime or Device - Polling Time.
This command injection vulnerability allows an unauthenticated user to execute arbitrary commands if a poller_item with the action type POLLER_ACTION_SCRIPT_PHP (2) is configured. The authorization bypass should be prevented by not allowing an attacker to make get_client_addr (file lib/functions.php) return an arbitrary IP address. This could be done by not honoring the HTTP_... $_SERVER variables. If these should be kept for compatibility reasons it should at least be prevented to fake the IP address of the server running Cacti. This vulnerability has been addressed in both the 1.2.x and 1.3.x release branches with 1.2.23 being the first release containing the patch.
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-74: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a command, data structure, or record using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify how it is parsed or interpreted when it is sent to a downstream component.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Programming languages and supporting technologies might be chosen which are not subject to these issues.
- Implementation: Utilize an appropriate mix of allowlist and denylist parsing to filter control-plane syntax from all input.
CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
- 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.
- Architecture and Design: For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- 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.
- Implementation: While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).
- Implementation: If the program to be executed allows arguments to be specified within an input file or from standard input, then consider using that mode to pass arguments instead of the command line.
- 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. Some languages offer multiple functions that can be used to invoke commands. Where possible, identify any function that invokes a command shell using a single string, and replace it with a function that requires individual arguments. These functions typically perform appropriate quoting and filtering of arguments. For example, in C, the system() function accepts a string that contains the entire command to be executed, whereas execl(), execve(), and others require an array of strings, one for each argument. In Windows, CreateProcess() only accepts one command at a time. In Perl, if system() is provided with an array of arguments, then it will quote each of the arguments.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When constructing OS command strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing OS command injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent OS command injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, when invoking a mail program, you might need to allow the subject field to contain otherwise-dangerous inputs like ";" and ">" characters, which would ne
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of OS Command Injection, error information passed back to the user might reveal whether an OS command is being executed and possibly which command is being used.
- Operation: Use runtime policy enforcement to create an allowlist of allowable commands, then prevent use of any command that does not appear in the allowlist. Technologies such as AppArmor are available to do this.
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
- 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 authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
- Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
- System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.
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-j8rh-479h-cp32 Axios: Header Injection via Inherited headers After Minimal Interceptor | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-74 |
| GHSA-4hqw-qxg8-jxx2 Axios: Fetch Adapter Header Injection via Inherited FormData getHeaders | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-74 |
| GHSA-h58c-xccx-75m3 Coder: Stored HTML injection via unescaped ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-74 |
| GHSA-5rw4-4665-cvwf Froxlor DomainZones.add allows DNS zone-file RR injection via record/type fields | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-74 |
| GHSA-jm78-9fvv-mhgr GitPython: git-config OPTION-name injection via =/#/whitespace bypasses name validator, enabling forged core.sshCommand/hooksPath (RCE) | High | Same weakness, CWE-74 |
| EEF-CVE-2026-68747 CSS sanitizer allowlist bypass in html_sanitize_ex via non-declaration input | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-74 |
| GHSA-9473-5f9j-94wq Nuxt: Server-Side Remote Code Execution via Runtime Template Injection in Nuxt Server Island Props | High | Same weakness, CWE-74 |
| GHSA-v3r7-h72x-cjcm undici vulnerable to cookie attribute injection via unsanitized domain and unparsed setCookie fields | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-74 |
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