Vulnerabilities > CVE-2012-3385 - Permissions, Privileges, and Access Controls vulnerability in Wordpress

047910
CVSS 5.0 - MEDIUM
Attack vector
NETWORK
Attack complexity
LOW
Privileges required
NONE
Confidentiality impact
PARTIAL
Integrity impact
NONE
Availability impact
NONE
network
low complexity
wordpress
CWE-264
nessus

Summary

WordPress before 3.4.1 does not properly restrict access to post contents such as private or draft posts, which allows remote authors or contributors to obtain sensitive information via unknown vectors.

Vulnerable Configurations

Part Description Count
Application
Wordpress
243

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 familyCGI abuses
NASL idWORDPRESS_3_4_1.NASL
descriptionAccording to its version number, the WordPress install hosted on the remote web server is affected by multiple vulnerabilities : - Version 3.4.0 does not properly restrict access to unfiltered_html when multisite is enabled, which allows for remote administrators or editors to perform cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks. (CVE-2012-3383) - The application is affected by a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability that could allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of victims via unknown vectors. (CVE-2012-3384) - The application is affected by an information disclosure vulnerability due to an error in checking user permissions when handling XMLRPC requests. Successfully exploiting this issue would allow an attacker to edit posts by users with insufficient permissions. (CVE-2012-3385) Note that Nessus has not tested for these issues but has instead relied only on the application
last seen2020-06-01
modified2020-06-02
plugin id60100
published2012-07-23
reporterThis script is Copyright (C) 2012-2018 Tenable Network Security, Inc.
sourcehttps://www.tenable.com/plugins/nessus/60100
titleWordPress < 3.4.1 Multiple Vulnerabilities
code
#
# (C) Tenable Network Security, Inc.
#

include("compat.inc");

if (description)
{
  script_id(60100);
  script_version("1.10");
  script_cvs_date("Date: 2018/08/07 16:46:49");

  script_cve_id("CVE-2012-3383", "CVE-2012-3384", "CVE-2012-3385");
  script_bugtraq_id(54224);

  script_name(english:"WordPress < 3.4.1 Multiple Vulnerabilities");
  script_summary(english:"Checks the version of WordPress.");

  script_set_attribute(attribute:"synopsis", value:
"The remote web server contains a PHP application that is affected by
multiple vulnerabilities.");
  script_set_attribute(attribute:"description", value:
"According to its version number, the WordPress install hosted on the
remote web server is affected by multiple vulnerabilities :

  - Version 3.4.0 does not properly restrict access to
    unfiltered_html when multisite is enabled, which
    allows for remote administrators or editors to
    perform cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks.
    (CVE-2012-3383)

  - The application is affected by a cross-site request
    forgery (CSRF) vulnerability that could allow remote
    attackers to hijack the authentication of victims via
    unknown vectors. (CVE-2012-3384)

  - The application is affected by an information disclosure
    vulnerability due to an error in checking user
    permissions when handling XMLRPC requests. Successfully
    exploiting this issue would allow an attacker to edit
    posts by users with insufficient permissions. 
    (CVE-2012-3385)

Note that Nessus has not tested for these issues but has instead
relied only on the application's self-reported version number.");
  script_set_attribute(attribute:"see_also", value:"https://wordpress.org/news/2012/06/wordpress-3-4-1/");
  script_set_attribute(attribute:"see_also", value:"https://codex.wordpress.org/Version_3.4.1");
  script_set_attribute(attribute:"solution", value:"Upgrade to WordPress 3.4.1 or later.");
  script_set_cvss_base_vector("CVSS2#AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P");
  script_set_cvss_temporal_vector("CVSS2#E:U/RL:OF/RC:C");
  script_set_attribute(attribute:"exploitability_ease", value:"No exploit is required");
  script_set_attribute(attribute:"exploit_available", value:"false");
  script_cwe_id(20, 74, 79, 442, 629, 711, 712, 722, 725, 750, 751, 800, 801, 809, 811, 864, 900, 928, 931, 990);

  script_set_attribute(attribute:"vuln_publication_date", value:"2012/06/27");
  script_set_attribute(attribute:"patch_publication_date", value:"2011/06/27");
  script_set_attribute(attribute:"plugin_publication_date", value:"2012/07/23");

  script_set_attribute(attribute:"potential_vulnerability", value:"true");
  script_set_attribute(attribute:"plugin_type", value:"remote");
  script_set_attribute(attribute:"cpe", value:"cpe:/a:wordpress:wordpress");
  script_end_attributes();

  script_category(ACT_GATHER_INFO);
  script_family(english:"CGI abuses");

  script_copyright(english:"This script is Copyright (C) 2012-2018 Tenable Network Security, Inc.");

  script_dependencies("wordpress_detect.nasl");
  script_require_keys("www/PHP", "installed_sw/WordPress", "Settings/ParanoidReport");
  script_require_ports("Services/www", 80);

  exit(0);
}

include("audit.inc");
include("global_settings.inc");
include("misc_func.inc");
include("http.inc");
include("install_func.inc");

app = "WordPress";
get_install_count(app_name:app, exit_if_zero:TRUE);

port = get_http_port(default:80, php:TRUE);

install = get_single_install(
  app_name : app,
  port     : port,
  exit_if_unknown_ver : TRUE
);

dir = install['path'];
version = install['version'];
install_url = build_url(port:port, qs:dir);

if (report_paranoia < 2) audit(AUDIT_PARANOID);

ver = split(version, sep:".", keep:FALSE);
for (i=0; i<max_index(ver); i++)
  ver[i] = int(ver[i]);

# Versions less than 3.4.1 are vulnerable
if (
  ver[0] < 3 ||
  (ver[0] == 3 && ver[1] < 4) ||
  (ver[0] == 3 && ver[1] == 4 && ver[2] < 1)
)
{
  set_kb_item(name:"www/"+port+"/XSS", value:TRUE);
  set_kb_item(name:"www/"+port+"/XSRF", value:TRUE);

  if (report_verbosity > 0)
  {
    report =
      '\n  URL               : ' +install_url+
      '\n  Installed version : ' +version+
      '\n  Fixed version     : 3.4.1\n';
    security_warning(port:port, extra:report);
  }
  else security_warning(port);
}
else audit(AUDIT_WEB_APP_NOT_AFFECTED, app, install_url, version);