|
|
 |
| New User, Welcome! Login |
Re: PR08-24: Proxim Tsunami MP.11 2411 vulnerable to SNMP Injection
| From: |
ProCheckUp Research <research procheckup com> |
| To: |
"Vladimir '3APA3A' Dubrovin" <3APA3A SECURITY NNOV RU> |
| Cc: |
bugtraq securityfocus com |
| Subject: |
Re: PR08-24: Proxim Tsunami MP.11 2411 vulnerable to SNMP Injection |
| Date: |
Fri - Oct 10, 2008 01:33 AM |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi 3APA3A,
That's a good question, and here is my answer from the draft version of
an upcoming paper I'm working on:
"
Gaining SNMP write access to a device is already a compromise on its own
and usually considered a potential high risk security issue. Therefore,
one could argue that there is no point in launching a SNMP injection
attack when we can already change system settings via the SNMP write
community string. You might be wondering: why bother injecting a
HTML/JavaScript payload on the web console through SNMP when I can
change system parameters via SNMP alone?
In reality however, when a valid SNMP write community is identified, we
find that many OIDs cannot be changed due to read-only settings enforced
on that particular object. Instead, we are restricted to only being able
to change a limited number of OIDs.
What OIDs can be modified with a SNMP write community string depends on
two factors:
- - Specific vendor implementation of SNMP write permissions
- - SNMP RFCs
By being able to change a limited number of OIDs via a SNMP write
community string, the attacker might be able to DoS the device by
crippling its configuration settings or even deface some banners.
However, a serious attacker is ultimately interested in gaining full
access (admin/root) to the target device. Since identifying a valid SNMP
write community string might not be enough to accomplish such goal, it
makes sense to resort to SNMP injection.
"
Hope that helps.
Regards,
ap.
Vladimir '3APA3A' Dubrovin wrote:
> Dear ProCheckUp Research,
>
> What can you achieve with script injection you can not achieve with
> SNMP write access?
>
> --Thursday, October 9, 2008, 5:02:44 PM, you wrote to bugtraq@securityfocus.com:
>
> PR> $ snmpset -v1 -c public 192.168.1.100 sysName.0 s
> '">><script>alert(1)</script>'
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFI7xPVoR/Hvsj3i8sRAlIUAJ9ZWNliZ18Akibq0R7XuHSDMiPCsQCdGZi8
Hrr0hjnddyfu+8pUqKeJcXk=
=UIm8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
Copyright © 1995-2012 LinuxRocket.net. All rights reserved.
Nearly all of LinuxRocket's features are free. Be kind and donate to the cause!