3.5 CVE-2024-11971

XSS Exploit

A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in Guizhou Xiaoma Technology jpress 5.1.2. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /commons/attachment/upload of the component Avatar Handler. The manipulation of the argument files leads to cross site scripting. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-11971

Categories

CWE-79 : Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users. A common abbreviation for Cross-Site Scripting. Used as a synonym of stored (Type 2) XSS. In the early years after initial discovery of XSS, "CSS" was a commonly-used acronym. However, this would cause confusion with "Cascading Style Sheets," so usage of this acronym has declined significantly. Use automated static analysis tools that target this type of weakness. Many modern techniques use data flow analysis to minimize the number of false positives. This is not a perfect solution, since 100% accuracy and coverage are not feasible, especially when multiple components are involved. Use the XSS Cheat Sheet [REF-714] or automated test-generation tools to help launch a wide variety of attacks against your web application. The Cheat Sheet contains many subtle XSS variations that are specifically targeted against weak XSS defenses. Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: 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. 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. 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. With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true. To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XMLHTTPRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set. 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. 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. 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. Python Library Manager did not sufficiently neutralize a user-supplied search term, allowing reflected XSS. Python-based e-commerce platform did not escape returned content on error pages, allowing for reflected Cross-Site Scripting attacks. Universal XSS in mobile operating system, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV. Chain: improper input validation (CWE-20) in firewall product leads to XSS (CWE-79), as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV. Admin GUI allows XSS through cookie. Web stats program allows XSS through crafted HTTP header. Web log analysis product allows XSS through crafted HTTP Referer header. Chain: protection mechanism failure allows XSS Chain: incomplete denylist (CWE-184) only checks "javascript:" tag, allowing XSS (CWE-79) using other tags Chain: incomplete denylist (CWE-184) only removes SCRIPT tags, enabling XSS (CWE-79) Reflected XSS using the PATH_INFO in a URL Reflected XSS not properly handled when generating an error message Reflected XSS sent through email message. Stored XSS in a security product. Stored XSS using a wiki page. Stored XSS in a guestbook application. Stored XSS in a guestbook application using a javascript: URI in a bbcode img tag. Chain: library file is not protected against a direct request (CWE-425), leading to reflected XSS (CWE-79).

CWE-434 : Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type
The product allows the upload or transfer of dangerous file types that are automatically processed within its environment. This can be primary when there is no check for the file type at all. This can be resultant when use of double extensions (e.g. ".php.gif") bypasses a check. This can be resultant from client-side enforcement (CWE-602); some products will include web script in web clients to check the filename, without verifying on the server side. Used in vulnerability databases and elsewhere, but it is insufficiently precise. The phrase could be interpreted as the lack of restrictions on the size or number of uploaded files, which is a resource consumption issue. Generate a new, unique filename for an uploaded file instead of using the user-supplied filename, so that no external input is used at all.[REF-422] [REF-423] 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. Consider storing the uploaded files outside of the web document root entirely. Then, use other mechanisms to deliver the files dynamically. [REF-423] Define a very limited set of allowable extensions and only generate filenames that end in these extensions. Consider the possibility of XSS (CWE-79) before allowing .html or .htm file types. Ensure that only one extension is used in the filename. Some web servers, including some versions of Apache, may process files based on inner extensions so that "filename.php.gif" is fed to the PHP interpreter.[REF-422] [REF-423] When running on a web server that supports case-insensitive filenames, perform case-insensitive evaluations of the extensions that are provided. 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. Do not rely exclusively on sanity checks of file contents to ensure that the file is of the expected type and size. It may be possible for an attacker to hide code in some file segments that will still be executed by the server. For example, GIF images may contain a free-form comments field. Do not rely exclusively on the MIME content type or filename attribute when determining how to render a file. Validating the MIME content type and ensuring that it matches the extension is only a partial solution. 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. PHP-based FAQ management app does not check the MIME type for uploaded images Web-based mail product stores ".shtml" attachments that could contain SSI PHP upload does not restrict file types upload and execution of .php file upload file with dangerous extension program does not restrict file types improper type checking of uploaded files Double "php" extension leaves an active php extension in the generated filename. ASP program allows upload of .asp files by bypassing client-side checks ASP file upload ASP file upload

References

cna@vuldb.com Exploit

https://github.com/dycccccccc/jpress/blob/main/JPRESS%20file%20upload%20leads... Exploit Third Party Advisory
https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.286381 Permissions Required
https://vuldb.com/?id.286381 Third Party Advisory
https://vuldb.com/?submit.453637 Third Party Advisory

CPE

cpe	start	end
Configuration 1
cpe:2.3:a:jpress:jpress:5.1.2:::::::*

REMEDIATION

EXPLOITS

Exploit-db.com

id	description	date
No known exploits

POC Github

Url
No known exploits

Other Nist (github, ...)

Url
https://github.com/dycccccccc/jpress/blob/main/JPRESS%20file%20upload%20leads...

CAPEC

Common Attack Pattern Enumerations and Classifications

id	description	severity
209	XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch An adversary creates a file with scripting content but where the specified MIME type of the file is such that scripting is not expected. The adversary tricks the victim into accessing a URL that responds with the script file. Some browsers will detect that the specified MIME type of the file does not match the actual type of its content and will automatically switch to using an interpreter for the real content type. If the browser does not invoke script filters before doing this, the adversary's script may run on the target unsanitized, possibly revealing the victim's cookies or executing arbitrary script in their browser. [Survey the application for stored user-controllable inputs] Using a browser or an automated tool, an adversary follows all public links and actions on a web site. They record all areas that allow a user to upload content through an HTTP POST request. This is typically found in blogs or forums. [Probe identified potential entry points for MIME type mismatch] The adversary uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and uploads files with scripting content, but whose MIME type is specified as a file type that cannot execute scripting content. If the application only checks the MIME type of the file, it may let the file through, causing the script to be executed by any user who accesses the file. [Store malicious XSS content] Once the adversary has determined which file upload locations are vulnerable to MIME type mismatch, they will upload a malicious script disguised as a non scripting file. The adversary can have many goals, from stealing session IDs, cookies, credentials, and page content from a victim. [Get victim to view stored content] In order for the attack to be successful, the victim needs to view the stored malicious content on the webpage.	Medium
588	DOM-Based XSS This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is inserted into the client-side HTML being parsed by a web browser. Content served by a vulnerable web application includes script code used to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM). This script code either does not properly validate input, or does not perform proper output encoding, thus creating an opportunity for an adversary to inject a malicious script launch a XSS attack. A key distinction between other XSS attacks and DOM-based attacks is that in other XSS attacks, the malicious script runs when the vulnerable web page is initially loaded, while a DOM-based attack executes sometime after the page loads. Another distinction of DOM-based attacks is that in some cases, the malicious script is never sent to the vulnerable web server at all. An attack like this is guaranteed to bypass any server-side filtering attempts to protect users. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser or an automated tool, an adversary follows all public links and actions on a web site. They record all the links, the forms, the resources accessed and all other potential entry-points for the web application. [Probe identified potential entry points for DOM-based XSS vulnerability] The adversary uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and injects various common script payloads and special characters to determine if an entry point actually represents a vulnerability and to characterize the extent to which the vulnerability can be exploited. Specific to DOM-based XSS, the adversary is looking for areas where input is being used to directly change the DOM. [Craft malicious XSS URL] Once the adversary has determined which parameters are vulnerable to XSS, they will craft a malicious URL containing the XSS exploit. The adversary can have many goals, from stealing session IDs, cookies, credentials, and page content from the victim. In DOM-based XSS, the malicious script might not even be sent to the server, since the victim's browser will manipulate the DOM itself. This can help avoid serve-side detection mechanisms. [Get victim to click URL] In order for the attack to be successful, the victim needs to access the malicious URL.	Very High
591	Reflected XSS This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is "reflected" off a vulnerable web application and then executed by a victim's browser. The process starts with an adversary delivering a malicious script to a victim and convincing the victim to send the script to the vulnerable web application. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser or an automated tool, an adversary follows all public links and actions on a web site. They record all the links, the forms, the resources accessed and all other potential entry-points for the web application. [Probe identified potential entry points for reflected XSS vulnerability] The adversary uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and injects various common script payloads and special characters to determine if an entry point actually represents a vulnerability and to characterize the extent to which the vulnerability can be exploited. [Craft malicious XSS URL] Once the adversary has determined which parameters are vulnerable to XSS, they will craft a malicious URL containing the XSS exploit. The adversary can have many goals, from stealing session IDs, cookies, credentials, and page content from the victim. [Get victim to click URL] In order for the attack to be successful, the victim needs to access the malicious URL.	Very High
592	Stored XSS An adversary utilizes a form of Cross-site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is persistently "stored" within the data storage of a vulnerable web application as valid input. [Survey the application for stored user-controllable inputs] Using a browser or an automated tool, an adversary follows all public links and actions on a web site. They record all the links, the forms, the resources accessed and all other potential entry-points for the web application. The adversary is looking for areas where user input is stored, such as user profiles, shopping carts, file managers, forums, blogs, and logs. [Probe identified potential entry points for stored XSS vulnerability] The adversary uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and injects various common script payloads and special characters to determine if an entry point actually represents a vulnerability and to characterize the extent to which the vulnerability can be exploited. [Store malicious XSS content] Once the adversary has determined which stored locations are vulnerable to XSS, they will interact with the web application to store the malicious content. The adversary can have many goals, from stealing session IDs, cookies, credentials, and page content from a victim. [Get victim to view stored content] In order for the attack to be successful, the victim needs to view the stored malicious content on the webpage.	Very High
63	Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) An adversary embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser or an automated tool, an attacker follows all public links and actions on a web site. They record all the links, the forms, the resources accessed and all other potential entry-points for the web application. [Probe identified potential entry points for XSS vulnerability] The attacker uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and injects various common script payloads to determine if an entry point actually represents a vulnerability and to characterize the extent to which the vulnerability can be exploited. [Steal session IDs, credentials, page content, etc.] As the attacker succeeds in exploiting the vulnerability, they can choose to steal user's credentials in order to reuse or to analyze them later on. [Forceful browsing] When the attacker targets the current application or another one (through CSRF vulnerabilities), the user will then be the one who perform the attacks without being aware of it. These attacks are mostly targeting application logic flaws, but it can also be used to create a widespread attack against a particular website on the user's current network (Internet or not). [Content spoofing] By manipulating the content, the attacker targets the information that the user would like to get from the website.	Very High
85	AJAX Footprinting This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS. [Send request to target webpage and analyze HTML] Using a browser or an automated tool, an adversary sends requests to a webpage and records the received HTML response. Adversaries then analyze the HTML to identify any known underlying JavaScript architectures. This can aid in mappiong publicly known vulnerabilities to the webpage and can also helpo the adversary guess application architecture and the inner workings of a system.	Low
1	Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to. [Survey] The attacker surveys the target application, possibly as a valid and authenticated user [Identify Functionality] At each step, the attacker notes the resource or functionality access mechanism invoked upon performing specific actions [Iterate over access capabilities] Possibly as a valid user, the attacker then tries to access each of the noted access mechanisms directly in order to perform functions not constrained by the ACLs.	High

MITRE

Techniques

id	description
T1574.010	Hijack Execution Flow: ServicesFile Permissions Weakness
© 2022 The MITRE Corporation. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of The MITRE Corporation.

Mitigations

id	description
T1574.010	Limit privileges of user accounts and groups so that only authorized administrators can interact with service changes and service binary target path locations. Deny execution from user directories such as file download directories and temp directories where able.
© 2022 The MITRE Corporation. Esta obra se reproduce y distribuye con el permiso de The MITRE Corporation.

Cybersecurity needs ?

Strengthen software security from the outset with our DevSecOps expertise

Integrate security right from the start of the software development cycle for more robust applications and greater customer confidence.
Our team of DevSecOps experts can help you secure your APIs, data pipelines, CI/CD chains, Docker containers and Kubernetes deployments.

Discover this offer

Soutenez No Hack Me sur Tipeee