CVE-2016-3081

CVE: CVE-2016-3081
CWE: 77
bugs: []
vccs:
- note: Initial import of WebWork 2
  commit: c01d3a92db7f71f751a0522912d24bcf4a94a1b0
- note: 
  commit: 
fixes:
- note: Blocked chained expressions 2.3.28.x
  commit: c48007cccc4a8007005eec782902c1f38e683438
- note: Blocked chained expressions 2.3.24.x
  commit: 47da9c9f52bab960ff745e06adb3a32917698c9e
- note: Blocked chained expressions 2.3.20.x
  commit: 98eb21ae8528dd5fdc3f76ed9ade897a1c679131
bounty:
  amt: 
  url: 
  announced: 
lessons:
  yagni:
    note: 
    applies: 
  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: 
  complex_inputs:
    note: 
    applies: 
  distrust_input:
    note: |
      The vulnerability occurs due to the lack of input validation allowing an attacker
      to submit malicious expressions to the system. Having input validation/sanitization
      can help prevent an attacker from gaining access to the system to execute arbitrary
      code.
    applies: true
  least_privilege:
    note: 
    applies: 
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: 
  defense_in_depth:
    note: |
      Based on the definition of remote code execution, a way to protect against it is to fix
      the holes that allow an attacker to gain access. Having multiple layers of defense
      in the system prevents an attacker from being able to elevate their privileges and gain
      control.
    applies: true
  secure_by_default:
    note: 
    applies: 
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: 
upvotes: 
mistakes:
  answer: "I think this vulnerability is the result of a design mistake. This vulnerability\noccurs
    when attackers execute a command that gives them a capability that they \notherwise
    would not have. An attacker submits a malicious expression to the system,\nand
    if successful, could execute arbitrary code through dynamic method invocation.\nFor
    this particular problem, disabling dynamic method invocation will solve the\nproblem.
    In general, a mitigation is to assume that all input is malicious and use \nan
    \"accept known good\" input strategy. Reject input that does not conform to specifications,\nor
    modify it into something that does.\n"
  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: '2016-04-22'
announced: '2016-04-22'
subsystem:
  name:
  - xwork2
  - ognl
  answer: The OGNL system for Apache Struts, an expression language for Java
  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: '2016-04-15'
  answer: "The vulnerability was first reported by Nike Zheng at dbappsecurity.com.cn.
    I'm not \nsure if this is how Zheng discovered the vulnerability, but a Metasploit
    module exploits\nthe vulnerability through remote code execution. Metasploit is
    a penetration testing\nplatform that finds, exploits, and validates vulnerabilities.\n"
  apache: false
  contest: false
  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: "A remote user is able to execute arbitrary code on a targeted system.
  This is\npossible when Dynamic Method Invocation is enabled and performed through
  \n\"method: prefix\". This provides an attacker the ability to pass a malicious\nexpression
  into user input to gain access to the system due to the lack of \nsanitization.
  In this case, dynamic method invocation is when HTTP parameters\nare prefixed with
  \"method:\". In other words, an attacker can specify what method\nthe system should
  execute specified in the URL. This vulnerability is classified \nas high severity
  and can be solved by disabling dynamic method invocation when possible.\n"
unit_tested:
  fix: 
  code: true
  answer: |
    I can see that there were tests made in the three fix commit hashes in the
    Java file, OgnlUtilTest.
  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: 
  commit: 
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: S2-032
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: "When I looked at the commits between the VCC and fixes, I noticed that
    there's\nmany commits that have \"prepare for next development iteration\" and
    \"prepare\nrelease STRUTS_2_3_xx\". It's a constant cycle of that with another
    commit in\nbetween that makes changes to a number of files.  \n"
  commits:
  - note: One of the prepare for next development iteration commits
    commit: 94c44626588cbafc39507550ea37fab2b679d7d1
  - note: The "prepare release STRUTS_2_3_xx" commit associated with the one mentioned
      above
    commit: 8a59ed02c958db9213f0e54d816882a902891761
  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.