CVE-2014-0112

CVE: CVE-2014-0112
CWE: 264
bugs: []
vccs:
- note: Initial import of WebWork 2
  commit: c01d3a92db7f71f751a0522912d24bcf4a94a1b0
- note: 
  commit: 
fixes:
- note: Adds additional exclude params
  commit: 65efe3dc2185003d4b199fc389aa633f3a186e39
- note: 
  commit: 
bounty:
  amt: 
  url: 
  announced: 
lessons:
  yagni:
    note: 
    applies: false
  question: |
    Are there any common lessons we have learned from class that apply to this
    vulnerability? In other words, could this vulnerability serve as an example
    of one of those lessons?
    Leave "applies" blank or put false if you did not see that lesson (you do
    not need to put a reason). Put "true" if you feel the lesson applies and put
    a quick explanation of how it applies.
    Don't feel the need to claim that ALL of these apply, but it's pretty likely
    that one or two of them apply.
    If you think of another lesson we covered in class that applies here, feel
    free to give it a small name and add one in the same format as these.
  serial_killer:
    note: 
    applies: false
  complex_inputs:
    note: |
      With complex inputs a user can use complex inputs to make calls to a
      certain class and gain elevated privileges.
    applies: true
  distrust_input:
    note: |
      An attacker is able to take advantage of a lack of input checks to gain
      access into the system.
    applies: true
  least_privilege:
    note: 
    applies: false
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: false
  defense_in_depth:
    note: 
    applies: false
  secure_by_default:
    note: 
    applies: false
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: false
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: false
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: false
upvotes: 
mistakes:
  answer: |
    The biggest issue of this vulnerability was that a previous vulnerability
    fix was not tested thoroughly. This vulnerability (CVE-2014-0094) was the
    cause of multiple other vulnerabilties afterward (CVE-2014-0112,
    CVE-2014-0113, CVE-2014-0114 just to name a few). This showed that there was
    a lack of unit testing and acceptance testing in the addition of this bug
    fix. Thankfully, from researching, it didn't take long once these
    vulnerabilities were started to be finished. To ensure testing is done
    thoroughly in the future having multiple reviewers of code could be
    implemented to put multiple eyes on fixes, and thus, increasing the chances
    of bugs like this being caught.
  question: |
    In your opinion, after all of this research, what mistakes were made that
    led to this vulnerability? Coding mistakes? Design mistakes?
    Maintainability? Requirements? Miscommunications?
    Look at the CWE entry for this vulnerability and examine the mitigations
    they have written there. Are they doing those? Does the fix look proper?
    Use those questions to inspire your answer. Don't feel obligated to answer
    every one. Write a thoughtful entry here that those in the software
    engineering industry would find interesting.
nickname: 
reported: '2014-04-24'
announced: '2013-12-03'
subsystem:
  name: 
  answer: |
    The mistake was a classLoader in CVE-2014-0094 was not specific on
    characters that needed to be left out when the function was called.
  question: |
    What subsystems was the mistake in?
    Look at the path of the source code files code that were fixed to get
    directory names. Look at comments in the code. Look at the bug reports how
    the bug report was tagged. Examples: "clipboard", "gpu", "ssl", "speech",
    "renderer"
discovered:
  date: '2014-04-28'
  answer: |
    This vulnerability was actually found and well known because this, and
    other cves had a bug left when designing a class loader abject for another
    versions. The bugged cve was version CVE-2014-0094.
  apache: 
  contest: 
  question: |
    How was this vulnerability discovered?
    Go to the bug report and read the conversation to find out how this was
    originally found. Answer in longform below in "answer", fill in the date in
    YYYY-MM-DD, and then determine if the vulnerability was found by a Apache
    employee (you can tell from their email address). If it's clear that the
    vulnerability was discovered by a contest, fill in the name there.
    The "automated" flag can be true, false, or nil.
    The "apache" flag can be true, false, or nil.
    If there is no evidence as to how this vulnerability was found, then you may
    leave the entries blank except for "answer". Write down where you looked in
    "answer".
  automated: 
description: |
  The excluded parameter pattern intoduced in an earlier Apache version to block
  access to a getClass() method wasn't detailed enough. Special requests could
  allow an attacker to circumnavigate this blocker. Also a "CookieIntercrptor"
  object is vulnerable for the same kind of attack when configured to accept all
  cookies. This exists because of an incomplete previous fix.
unit_tested:
  fix: true
  code: true
  answer: |
    There seems to be a unit test in the git repo for the vulnerability although
    whether it is new or an improved one I was not able to tell given the
    information.
  question: |
    Were automated unit tests involved in this vulnerability?
    Was the original code unit tested, or not unit tested? Did the fix involve
    improving the automated tests?
    Write the reasoning behind your answer in the "answer" field.
    For the "code" answer below, look not only at the fix but the surrounding
    code near the fix and determine if and was there were unit tests involved
    for this module. Must be just "true" or "false".
    For the "fix" answer below, check if the fix for the vulnerability involves
    adding or improving an automated test to ensure this doesn't happen again.
    Must be just "true" or "false".
future_fixes:
- note: Moves exclude patterns into dedicated class
  commit: 2e2da292166adbc78c4cb1e308b30ddb4fba6d3f
- note: Uses global exclude patterns to initialize excludeParams
  commit: 6315241719be167542962da436b38782ed730c62
curation_level: 1
previous_fixes:
- note: 
  commit: 
- note: 
  commit: 
CWE_instructions: |
  Please go to cwe.mitre.org and find the most specific, appropriate CWE entry
  that describes your vulnerability. (Tip: this may not be a good one to start
  with - spend time understanding this vulnerability before making your choice!)
security_bulletin: S2-021
bounty_instructions: |
  If you came across any indications that a bounty was paid out for this
  vulnerability, fill it out here. Or correct it if the information already here
  was wrong. Otherwise, leave it blank.
interesting_commits:
  answer: |
    The main fix between them is setting up a class that excludes specific
    characters that can be used to run melicious code.
  commits:
  - note: 
    commit: 
  - note: 
    commit: 
  question: |
    Are there any interesting commits between your VCC(s) and fix(es)?
    Write a brief (under 100 words) description of why you think this commit was
    interesting in light of the lessons learned from this vulnerability. Any
    emerging themes?
    If there are no interesting commits, demonstrate that you completed this
    section by explaining what happened between the VCCs and the fix.
curated_instructions: |
  If you are manually editing this file, then you are "curating" it. Set the
  entry below to "true" as soon as you start. This will enable additional
  integrity checks on this file to make sure you fill everything out properly.
  If you are a student, we cannot accept your work as finished unless curated is
  set to true.
upvotes_instructions: |
  Students: when initially writing this, ignore this upvotes number.
  Once this work is being reviewed, you will be giving a certain amount of
  upvotes to each vulnerability you see. Your peers will tell you how
  interesting they think this vulnerability is, and you'll add that to the
  upvotes score on your branch.
nickname_instructions: |
  Nickname is optional. Provide a useful, professional, and catchy nickname for
  this vulnerability. Ideally fewer than 30 characters. This will be shown
  alongside its CVE to make it more easily distinguished from the rest.
reported_instructions: |
  Was there a date that this vulnerability was reported to the team? You can
  find this in changelogs, blogs, bug reports, or perhaps the CVE data.
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
announced_instructions: |
  Was there a date that this vulnerability was announced to the world? You can
  find this in changelogs, blogs, bug reports, or perhaps the CVE data.
  Please enter your date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
fixes_vcc_instructions: |
  Please put the SVN commit number in "commit" below, and any notes about how
  this was discovered in the "note" field.
description_instructions: |
  You can get an initial description from the CVE entry on cve.mitre.org. These
  descriptions are a fine start, but they can be kind of jargony.
  Rewrite this description in your own words. Make it interesting and easy to
  read to anyone with some programming experience. We can always pull up the NVD
  description later to get more technical.
  Try to still be specific in your description, but remove Struts-specific
  stuff. Remove references to versions, specific filenames, and other jargon
  that outsiders to Struts would not understand. Technology like "regular
  expressions" is fine, and security phrases like "invalid write" are fine to
  keep too.
incomplete_fix_instructions: |
  Did the above "fixes" actually fix the vulnerability?
  Please list any fixes for the same issue before and after
  this CVE below.