GHSA-j68f-8h6p-9h5q CVE-2011-3923
Struts ParameterInterceptor vulnerability allows remote command execution
Critical
Maven
- Severity
- 9.8 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 89.49%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.79% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-732 Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
2.3.1.2- Upgrade org.apache.struts:struts2-core to this version or later
Description
Regular expression in ParametersInterceptor matches top['foo'](0) as a valid expression, which OGNL treats as (top['foo'])(0) and evaluates the value of 'foo' action parameter as an OGNL expression. This lets malicious users put arbitrary OGNL statements into any String variable exposed by an action and have it evaluated as an OGNL expression and since OGNL statement is in HTTP parameter value attacker can use blacklisted characters (e.g. #) to disable method execution and execute arbitrary methods, bypassing the ParametersInterceptor and OGNL library protections.
Affected versions
Maven
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| org.apache.struts:struts2-core | >= 2.0.0, < 2.3.1.2 |
2.3.1.2 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
org.apache.struts:struts2-core Maven → 2.3.1.2
- maven
<dependency><groupId>org.apache.struts</groupId><artifactId>struts2-core</artifactId><version>2.3.1.2</version></dependency>- gradle
implementation("org.apache.struts:struts2-core:2.3.1.2")
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-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-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- 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. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
- 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: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
References
Advisories
Other links
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
- exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/72585
- security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2011-3923
- web.archive.org/web/20140725074137/http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2014/Jul/38
- blog.o0o.nu/2012/01/cve-2011-3923-yet-another-struts2.html
- struts.apache.org/development/2.x/docs/s2-009.html
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-8c6j-ffmf-q6vm Apache Struts RCE Vulnerability | High Known exploited | Also affects org.apache.struts:struts2-core |
| GHSA-47qp-8v9g-39hp Code injection in Apache Struts | Critical Known exploited | Also affects org.apache.struts:struts2-core |
| GHSA-4wrr-9h5r-m92w Apache Struts Remote Java Code Execution | Critical Known exploited | Also affects org.apache.struts:struts2-core |
| CVE-2020-17530 Remote code execution in Apache Struts | Critical Known exploited | Also affects org.apache.struts:struts2-core |
| GHSA-j77q-2qqg-6989 Apache Struts vulnerable to remote arbitrary command execution due to improper input validation | Critical Known exploited | Also affects org.apache.struts:struts2-core |
| CVE-2018-11776 Apache Struts vulnerable to remote command execution (RCE) due to improper input validation | High Known exploited | Also affects org.apache.struts:struts2-core |
| GHSA-qcfc-hmrc-59x7 Apache Struts 2 is Missing XML Validation | High | Also affects org.apache.struts:struts2-core |
| GHSA-rg58-xhh7-mqjw Apache Struts has a Denial of Service vulnerability | High | Also affects org.apache.struts:struts2-core |
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