Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

CVE-2022-47966

Multiple Zoho ManageEngine on-premise products, such as ServiceDesk Plus through 14003, allow remote code execution due to use of Apache Santuario xmlsec (aka…

Critical Known exploited
Severity
9.8 / 10
Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
99.75%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.95% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
Yes
In CISA's catalog since Jan 23, 2023
Weakness
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published
Exploited in the wild. Zoho ManageEngine Multiple Products Remote Code Execution Vulnerability (Zoho ManageEngine). Required action: Apply updates per vendor instructions. Due for U.S. federal agencies by Feb 13, 2023. Known to be used in ransomware campaigns.

Description

Multiple Zoho ManageEngine on-premise products, such as ServiceDesk Plus through 14003, allow remote code execution due to use of Apache Santuario xmlsec (aka XML Security for Java) 1.4.1, because the xmlsec XSLT features, by design in that version, make the application responsible for certain security protections, and the ManageEngine applications did not provide those protections. This affects Access Manager Plus before 4308, Active Directory 360 before 4310, ADAudit Plus before 7081, ADManager Plus before 7162, ADSelfService Plus before 6211, Analytics Plus before 5150, Application Control Plus before 10.1.2220.18, Asset Explorer before 6983, Browser Security Plus before 11.1.2238.6, Device Control Plus before 10.1.2220.18, Endpoint Central before 10.1.2228.11, Endpoint Central MSP before 10.1.2228.11, Endpoint DLP before 10.1.2137.6, Key Manager Plus before 6401, OS Deployer before 1.1.2243.1, PAM 360 before 5713, Password Manager Pro before 12124, Patch Manager Plus before 10.1.2220.18, Remote Access Plus before 10.1.2228.11, Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) before 10.1.41. ServiceDesk Plus before 14004, ServiceDesk Plus MSP before 13001, SupportCenter Plus before 11026, and Vulnerability Manager Plus before 10.1.2220.18. Exploitation is only possible if SAML SSO has ever been configured for a product (for some products, exploitation requires that SAML SSO is currently active).

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-20: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
  • Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • 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.
  • 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. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
  • Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • 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

  1. Published
  2. Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
  3. Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
  4. Last updated by the source
  5. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-5849-834g-hvw5
pypdf has possible infinite loop when hitting EOF in standard xref table during trailer search
High Same weakness,
GHSA-cggf-277g-3q54
pypdf has possible large memory usage when parsing page tree
High Same weakness,
GHSA-mfr5-77xh-9j7h
pypdf has possible infinite loop when cloning dictionaries
High Same weakness,
GHSA-3g3m-2fjr-6pw4
Glob: AbortSignal cancellation bypass allows post-timeout filesystem traversal
Medium Same weakness,
GHSA-42gh-23hr-vphw
pypdf has possible long runtimes when retrieving page labels
High Same weakness,
GHSA-4vqv-7265-gm2w
pypdf has possible large memory usage for exceptions in strict mode
High Same weakness,
GHSA-62m5-6wh8-28x7
pypdf has possible long runtimes/large memory usage for encrypted PDF files
High Same weakness,
GHSA-2qm8-x737-gmw5
pyasn1 has quadratic CPU consumption in constructed BIT STRING decoding
High Same weakness,
Is this in your code?

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