Vulnerabilities > CVE-2010-2666 - Permissions, Privileges, and Access Controls vulnerability in Opera Browser
Attack vector
UNKNOWN Attack complexity
UNKNOWN Privileges required
UNKNOWN Confidentiality impact
UNKNOWN Integrity impact
UNKNOWN Availability impact
UNKNOWN Summary
Opera before 10.54 on Windows and Mac OS X does not properly enforce permission requirements for widget filesystem access and directory selection, which allows user-assisted remote attackers to create or modify arbitrary files, and consequently execute arbitrary code, via widget File I/O operations.
Vulnerable Configurations
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)
- Accessing, Modifying or Executing Executable Files An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an attacker to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an attacker 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.
- Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files An attack of this type exploits a system's trust in configuration and resource files, when the executable loads the resource (such as an image file or configuration file) the attacker has modified the file to either execute malicious code directly or manipulate the target process (e.g. application server) to execute based on the malicious configuration parameters. Since systems are increasingly interrelated mashing up resources from local and remote sources the possibility of this attack occurring is high. The attack can be directed at a client system, such as causing buffer overrun through loading seemingly benign image files, as in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-028 where specially crafted JPEG files could cause a buffer overrun once loaded into the browser. Another example targets clients reading pdf files. In this case the attacker simply appends javascript to the end of a legitimate url for a pdf (http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/danger-danger-danger/) http://path/to/pdf/file.pdf#whatever_name_you_want=javascript:your_code_here The client assumes that they are reading a pdf, but the attacker has modified the resource and loaded executable javascript into the client's browser process. The attack can also target server processes. The attacker edits the resource or configuration file, for example a web.xml file used to configure security permissions for a J2EE app server, adding role name "public" grants all users with the public role the ability to use the administration functionality. The server trusts its configuration file to be correct, but when they are manipulated, the attacker gains full control.
- Blue Boxing This type of attack against older telephone switches and trunks has been around for decades. A tone is sent by an adversary to impersonate a supervisor signal which has the effect of rerouting or usurping command of the line. While the US infrastructure proper may not contain widespread vulnerabilities to this type of attack, many companies are connected globally through call centers and business process outsourcing. These international systems may be operated in countries which have not upgraded Telco infrastructure and so are vulnerable to Blue boxing. Blue boxing is a result of failure on the part of the system to enforce strong authorization for administrative functions. While the infrastructure is different than standard current applications like web applications, there are historical lessons to be learned to upgrade the access control for administrative functions.
- Restful Privilege Elevation Rest uses standard HTTP (Get, Put, Delete) style permissions methods, but these are not necessarily correlated generally with back end programs. Strict interpretation of HTTP get methods means that these HTTP Get services should not be used to delete information on the server, but there is no access control mechanism to back up this logic. This means that unless the services are properly ACL'd and the application's service implementation are following these guidelines then an HTTP request can easily execute a delete or update on the server side. The attacker identifies a HTTP Get URL such as http://victimsite/updateOrder, which calls out to a program to update orders on a database or other resource. The URL is not idempotent so the request can be submitted multiple times by the attacker, additionally, the attacker may be able to exploit the URL published as a Get method that actually performs updates (instead of merely retrieving data). This may result in malicious or inadvertent altering of data on the server.
- Target Programs with Elevated Privileges This attack targets programs running with elevated privileges. The attacker would try to leverage a bug in the running program and get arbitrary code to execute with elevated privileges. For instance an attacker would look for programs that write to the system directories or registry keys (such as HKLM, which stores a number of critical Windows environment variables). These programs are typically running with elevated privileges and have usually not been designed with security in mind. Such programs are excellent exploit targets because they yield lots of power when they break. The malicious user try to execute its code at the same level as a privileged system call.
Nessus
| NASL family | Windows |
| NASL id | OPERA_1054.NASL |
| description | The version of Opera installed on the remote host is earlier than 10.54. Such versions are potentially affected by the following issues : - Web fonts may be used to trigger a privilege elevation vulnerability in the Windows operating system (MS10-032) (954) - It may be possible to use data URIs in a cross-site scripting attack. (955) - File inputs may disclose the path to selected files. (960) - It may be possible to use certain characters for domain name spoofing. (961) - It may be possible for a widget to use unrestricted file I/O to execute arbitrary code. (962) |
| last seen | 2020-06-01 |
| modified | 2020-06-02 |
| plugin id | 47113 |
| published | 2010-06-22 |
| reporter | This script is Copyright (C) 2010-2018 Tenable Network Security, Inc. |
| source | https://www.tenable.com/plugins/nessus/47113 |
| title | Opera < 10.54 Multiple Vulnerabilities |
| code | |
Oval
| accepted | 2013-12-23T04:00:06.765-05:00 | ||||||||||||
| class | vulnerability | ||||||||||||
| contributors |
| ||||||||||||
| definition_extensions |
| ||||||||||||
| description | Opera before 10.54 on Windows and Mac OS X does not properly enforce permission requirements for widget filesystem access and directory selection, which allows user-assisted remote attackers to create or modify arbitrary files, and consequently execute arbitrary code, via widget File I/O operations. | ||||||||||||
| family | windows | ||||||||||||
| id | oval:org.mitre.oval:def:11950 | ||||||||||||
| status | accepted | ||||||||||||
| submitted | 2010-08-03T10:31:45.529 | ||||||||||||
| title | Remote code execution in Opera before 10.54 due to failure to enforce permission requirements for widget filesystem access and directory selection | ||||||||||||
| version | 12 |
References
- http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/windows/1054/
- http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/mac/1054/
- http://secunia.com/advisories/40250
- http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/1529
- http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/40973
- http://www.opera.com/support/kb/view/962/
- https://oval.cisecurity.org/repository/search/definition/oval%3Aorg.mitre.oval%3Adef%3A11950