4.5 CVE-2024-45833

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.

Cross Site Tracing (XST) enables an adversary to steal the victim's session cookie and possibly other authentication credentials transmitted in the header of the HTTP request when the victim's browser communicates to a destination system's web server. [Determine if HTTP Trace is enabled] Determine if HTTP Trace is enabled at the web server with which the victim has an active session [Identify mechanism to launch HTTP Trace request] The adversary attempts to force the victim to issue an HTTP Trace request to the targeted application. [Create a malicious script that pings the web server with HTTP TRACE request] The adversary creates a malicious script that will induce the victim's browser to issue an HTTP TRACE request to the destination system's web server. The script will further intercept the response from the web server, pick up sensitive information out of it, and forward to the site controlled by the adversary. [Execute malicious HTTP Trace launching script] The adversary leverages an XSS vulnerability to force the victim to execute the malicious HTTP Trace launching script [Intercept HTTP TRACE response] The adversary's script intercepts the HTTP TRACE response from teh web server, glance sensitive information from it, and forward that information to a server controlled by the adversary.

An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks. [Directory Discovery] Use a method, either manual, scripted, or automated to discover the directories on the server by making requests for directories that may possibly exist. During this phase the adversary is less concerned with whether a directory can be accessed or indexed and more focused on simply discovering what directories do exist on the target. [Iteratively explore directory/file structures] The adversary attempts to access the discovered directories that allow access and may attempt to bypass server or application level ACLs by using manual or automated methods [Read directories or files which are not intended for public viewing.] The adversary attempts to access the discovered directories that allow access and may attempt to bypass server or application level ACLs by using manual or automated methods

An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface. [Determine File/Directory Configuration] The adversary looks for misconfigured files or directories on a system that might give executable access to an overly broad group of users. [Upload Malicious Files] If the adversary discovers a directory that has executable permissions, they will attempt to upload a malicious file to execute. [Execute Malicious File] The adversary either executes the uploaded malicious file, or executes an existing file that has been misconfigured to allow executable access to the adversary.

An attacker, armed with the cipher text and the encryption algorithm used, performs an exhaustive (brute force) search on the key space to determine the key that decrypts the cipher text to obtain the plaintext. Determine the ciphertext and the encryption algorithm. Perform an exhaustive brute force search of the key space, producing candidate plaintexts and observing if they make sense.

An attack of this type exploits vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by communicating directly with the server where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.

The attacker may submit malicious code of another language to obtain access to privileges that were not intentionally exposed by the sandbox, thus escaping the sandbox. For instance, Java code cannot perform unsafe operations, such as modifying arbitrary memory locations, due to restrictions placed on it by the Byte code Verifier and the JVM. If allowed, Java code can call directly into native C code, which may perform unsafe operations, such as call system calls and modify arbitrary memory locations on their behalf. To provide isolation, Java does not grant untrusted code with unmediated access to native C code. Instead, the sandboxed code is typically allowed to call some subset of the pre-existing native code that is part of standard libraries. [Probing] The attacker probes the target application to see whether calling code of another language is allowed within a sandbox. [Analysis] The attacker analyzes the target application to get a list of cross code weaknesses in the standard libraries of the sandbox. [Verify the exploitable security weaknesses] The attacker tries to craft malicious code of another language allowed by the sandbox to verify the security weaknesses of the standard libraries found in the Explore phase. [Exploit the security weaknesses in the standard libraries] The attacker calls malicious code of another language to exploit the security weaknesses in the standard libraries verified in the Experiment phase. The attacker will be able to obtain access to privileges that were not intentionally exposed by the sandbox, thus escaping the sandbox.

An adversary searches for and invokes interfaces or functionality that the target system designers did not intend to be publicly available. If interfaces fail to authenticate requests, the attacker may be able to invoke functionality they are not authorized for. [Identify services] Discover a service of interest by exploring service registry listings or by connecting on a known port or some similar means. [Authenticate to service] Authenticate to the service, if required, in order to explore it. [Identify all interfaces] Determine the exposed interfaces by querying the registry as well as probably sniffing to expose interfaces that are not explicitly listed. [Attempt to discover unpublished functions] Using manual or automated means, discover unpublished or undocumented functions exposed by the service. [Exploit unpublished functions] Using information determined via experimentation, exploit the unpublished features of the service.

An attacker exploits the underlying complexity of a data structure that allows for both signed and unsigned content, to cause unsigned data to be processed as though it were signed data.

An adversary gains access to an application, service, or device with the privileges of an authorized or privileged user by escaping the confines of a virtualized environment. The adversary is then able to access resources or execute unauthorized code within the host environment, generally with the privileges of the user running the virtualized process. Successfully executing an attack of this type is often the first step in executing more complex attacks. [Probing] The adversary probes the target application, service, or device to find a possible weakness that would allow escaping the virtualized environment. [Verify the exploitable security weaknesses] Using the found weakness, the adversary attempts to escape the virtualized environment. [Execute more complex attacks] Once outside of the virtualized environment, the adversary attempts to perform other more complex attacks such as accessing system resources or executing unauthorized code within the host environment.

SOA and Web Services often use a registry to perform look up, get schema information, and metadata about services. A poisoned registry can redirect (think phishing for servers) the service requester to a malicious service provider, provide incorrect information in schema or metadata, and delete information about service provider interfaces. [Find a target SOA or Web Service] The adversary must first indentify a target SOA or Web Service. [Determine desired outcome] Because poisoning a web service registry can have different outcomes, the adversary must decide how they wish to effect the webservice. [Determine if a malicious service needs to be created] If the adversary wishes to redirect requests or responses, they will need to create a malicious service to redirect to. [Poison Web Service Registry] Based on the desired outcome, poison the web service registry. This is done by altering the data at rest in the registry or uploading malicious content by spoofing a service provider.

This attack utilizes a REST(REpresentational State Transfer)-style applications' trust in the system resources and environment to obtain sensitive data once SSL is terminated. [Find a REST-style application that uses SSL] The adversary must first find a REST-style application that uses SSL to target. Because this attack is easier to carry out from inside of a server network, it is likely that an adversary could have inside knowledge of how services operate. [Insert a listener to sniff client-server communication] The adversary inserts a listener that must exist beyond the point where SSL is terminated. This can be placed on the client side if it is believed that sensitive information is being sent to the client as a response, although most often the listener will be placed on the server side to listen for client authentication information. [Gather information passed in the clear] If developers have not hashed or encrypted data sent in the sniffed request, the adversary will be able to read this data in the clear. Most commonly, they will now have a username or password that they can use to submit requests to the web service just as an authorized user

This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking. [Find Session IDs] The attacker interacts with the target host and finds that session IDs are used to authenticate users. [Characterize IDs] The attacker studies the characteristics of the session ID (size, format, etc.). As a results the attacker finds that legitimate session IDs are predictable. [Match issued IDs] The attacker brute forces different values of session ID and manages to predict a valid session ID. [Use matched Session ID] The attacker uses the falsified session ID to access the target system.

An adversary passively sniffs network communications and captures application code bound for an authorized client. Once obtained, they can use it as-is, or through reverse-engineering glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server. Such code may belong to a dynamic update to the client, a patch being applied to a client component or any such interaction where the client is authorized to communicate with the server. [Set up a sniffer] The adversary sets up a sniffer in the path between the server and the client and watches the traffic. [Capturing Application Code Bound During Patching]adversary knows that the computer/OS/application can request new applications to install, or it periodically checks for an available update. The adversary loads the sniffer set up during Explore phase, and extracts the application code from subsequent communication. The adversary then proceeds to reverse engineer the captured code.

An adversary can exploit a flaw in Bluetooth key negotiation allowing them to decrypt information sent between two devices communicating via Bluetooth. The adversary uses an Adversary in the Middle setup to modify packets sent between the two devices during the authentication process, specifically the entropy bits. Knowledge of the number of entropy bits will allow the attacker to easily decrypt information passing over the line of communication. [Discovery] Using an established Person in the Middle setup, search for Bluetooth devices beginning the authentication process. [Change the entropy bits] Upon recieving the initial key negotiation packet from the master, the adversary modifies the entropy bits requested to 1 to allow for easy decryption before it is forwarded. [Capture and decrypt data] Once the entropy of encryption is known, the adversary can capture data and then decrypt on their device.

Adversary determines the nature of state management employed by the target. This includes determining the location (client-side, server-side or both applications) and possibly the items stored as part of user state. The adversary now tries to modify the user state contents (possibly indiscriminately if the contents are encrypted or otherwise obfuscated) or cause a state transition and observe the effects of this change on the target. Having determined how to manipulate the state, the adversary can perform illegitimate actions.

An attacker employs forceful browsing (direct URL entry) to access portions of a website that are otherwise unreachable. Usually, a front controller or similar design pattern is employed to protect access to portions of a web application. Forceful browsing enables an attacker to access information, perform privileged operations and otherwise reach sections of the web application that have been improperly protected. [Spider] Using an automated tool, an attacker follows all public links on a web site. They record all the links they find. [Attempt well-known or guessable resource locations] Using an automated tool, an attacker requests a variety of well-known URLs that correspond to administrative, debugging, or other useful internal actions. They record all the positive responses from the server. [Use unauthorized resources] By visiting the unprotected resource, the attacker makes use of unauthorized functionality. [View unauthorized data] The attacker discovers and views unprotected sensitive data.