RE: Apache Multiple Injection Vulnerabilities

看板Bugtraq作者時間19年前 (2007/02/16 02:36), 編輯推噓0(000)
留言0則, 0人參與, 最新討論串1/1
No offence meant, but in all of your advisory only the control-code = stuff and possibly pissing off IPS/IDS systems makes sense.=20 But you need to have the user click a URL on a page you control. If a = URL he clicks on your site makes the IPS/IDS shout alerts, he might just = get a clue, and suspect your site instead of the site you linked to. = Either way, it's harmless, as long as there are no weird bugs in = browsers concerning this. But even then it's just as easy to make your = own webserver spew out the harmful data.=20 Now correct me if I'm wrong, but your cache poisoning in combination = with redirection only works if you can edit the html files accessed. = Well now, if you can edit the html files, you can just put redirects in = there. Now, I agree that it's a bug, but it's not a _security_ bug. Other than that, the fact that the Host header is used to make = redirects, is absolutely normal, not a bug, not a security bug by a long = shot. If the user can reach a server with a certain hostname, getting a = redirect with the same hostname is something you'd want. The fact that = you can manually craft a header with a fake hostname doesn't mean you = can get a user's browser to do that. You have a nice "Proof of Concept" on your site, where you put some = JavaScript in the Host header of the request. But how would you ever get = a user's browser to have that crafted header? If you can control the = browser to that extent, there are much much worse things you can do. And = if you craft a URL with that as a hostname, the browser will not be able = to resolve it to an IP. Greetings, Rogier > -----Original Message----- > From: hugo@infohacking.com [mailto:hugo@infohacking.com] > Sent: woensdag 14 februari 2007 6:21 > To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com > Subject: Apache Multiple Injection Vulnerabilities >=20 > There's a new advisory at: > = http://www.infohacking.com/INFOHACKING_RESEARCH/Our_Advisories/apache/ind= e > x.html >=20 > Summarizing: >=20 > "1.- HTTP 404 error response almost arbitrary injection (Apache) >=20 > Impact right now: >=20 > a) fake virus injection in Apache 404 HTTP responses wich can lead in > alarms on corporate gateway antivirus, lose of trust on supposed = trusted > sites, end user paranoid... >=20 > b) Control codes injection -backspaces, etc.- thus allowing script > injection in the server response. Right now it seems that this > vulnerability is not > affecting real browsers, just because of the "backspace" escaping in = the > clients, or due to other things. Anyway, the problem is that echoing = back > control codes is a violation of the Content-Type charset in the = response > and is IMHO a security risk. >=20 > Impact in the future: REAL injection in Apache 404 HTTP responses of > almost any kind of file, that is virus, binaries, trojans, etc. The > attacker must > be able to modify the "Content-Type" HTTP header of the server = response. > Also, due to some restrictions in the injected "payload", the attacker > must avoid > using some chars like null bytes. >=20 > 2.- Location HTTP header injection in server redirect responses = (Apache, > IIS, Zeus 3.2, Google Web Server, Jigsaw/2.2.5, probably many > others) >=20 > Impact: Depending on the affected web server it could be a Denial of > Service -when combined with a proxy cach=E9 poisoning-, HTTP URL > redirection, etc." This e-mail message and its attachments are subject to the disclaimer = published at the following website of Casema: = http://www.casema.nl/disclaimer
文章代碼(AID): #15rAWK00 (Bugtraq)