CVE-2017-12617

aka Run Me, Please

CVE: CVE-2017-12617
CWE: 434
bugs:
- 61542
vccs:
- note: Initial development of the FileDirContext.java file.
  commit: eae54419c6e196933998f63358367040edaa4a8c
- note: 
  commit: 
fixes:
- note: SVN rev 1809669, from the Tomcat website.
  commit: a9dd96046d7acb0357c6b7b9e6cc70d186fae663
- note: SVN rev 1809674, from the Tomcat website.
  commit: c177e9668d1278710bdb14c0eb8d2702b3655f5a
- note: SVN rev 1809684, from the Tomcat website.
  commit: e650cf1b83e441dbd3863f3f6b61c972cafce19e
- note: SVN rev 1809711, from the Tomcat website.
  commit: 31e99502e2c602449a2f8835bd23ade772b77333
- note: SVN rev 1809673, from the Tomcat website.
  commit: d5b170705d24c386d76038e5989045c89795c28c
- note: SVN rev 1809675, from the Tomcat website.
  commit: 46dfedbc0523d7182be97f4244d7b6c942164485
- note: SVN rev 1809896, from the Tomcat website.
  commit: 74ad0e216c791454a318c1811300469eedc5c6f3
- note: SVN rev 1809978, from the Tomcat website.
  commit: bbcbb749c75056a2781f37038d63e646fe972104
- note: SVN rev 1809992, from the Tomcat website.
  commit: cf0b37beb0622abdf24acc7110daf883f3fe4f95
- note: SVN rev 1810014, from the Tomcat website.
  commit: fd52f8601170b91f9d7162510e54563e5bf6bdfe
- note: SVN rev 1810026, from the Tomcat website.
  commit: 24aea94807f940ee44aa550378dc903289039ddd
- note: 
  commit: 
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: 
    applies: 
  least_privilege:
    note: 
    applies: 
  native_wrappers:
    note: 
    applies: 
  defense_in_depth:
    note: 
    applies: 
  secure_by_default:
    note: This vulnerability came about due to certain configurations being used.
      After reading the bug report, the popular opinion is that the readonly parameter
      should always be set to true, but it seems like people set it to false anyways.
    applies: true
  environment_variables:
    note: 
    applies: 
  security_by_obscurity:
    note: 
    applies: 
  frameworks_are_optional:
    note: 
    applies: 
upvotes: 6
mistakes:
  answer: |-
    I wouldn't really call it a mistake, but I find it strange that there is a setting for the readonly parameter since most, if not all, people would want it be set to true. I am guessing that it was relevant in the past and they need to maintain that setting for previous technologies. I would say this is a form of miscommunication since the people who are exposing themselves to this exploit don't have a complete understanding of what the settings do.
    The lesson to be learned here is to always review the code when introducing new systems and to update documentation so that users can understand what each configuration does even if it may be considerd old or not as relevant.
  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 ing the software
    engineering industry would find interesting.
nickname: Run Me, Please
reported: '2017-09-20'
announced: '2017-09-21'
subsystem:
  name: Catalina
  answer: Based on the bug report.
  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: '2017-09-20'
  answer: This vulnerability was basically an extension of a previous vulnerability,
    CVE-2017-12615. There was a bypass for the fix for CVE-2017-12615, so another
    fix had to be introduced.
  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
    * 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.
    If there is no evidence as to how this vulnerability was found, then you
    may leave the entries blank except for "answer", BUT please write down
    where you looked in "answer".
  automated: false
description: |-
  This was a vulnerability that affected people who used Apache Tomcat versions 70, 80, 85, and 90.
  The vulnerability allowed people to upload a Java Server Page (JSP) file to a server if the Java servlet had HTTP put enabled and had a setting called readonly set to false. A JSP file is written in Java and it allows the web server to execute the code to produce HTML that the user sees. The file is only able to get uploaded to the servlet if it is sent through a specially crafted request.
  Users who request that file intentionally or unintentionally will cause the server to execute the code on the JSP file which can be malicious.
unit_tested:
  fix: true
  code: true
  answer: There were some unit testing involved for the code before the vulnerability
    was known. Part of the revisions included additional code for testing.
  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".
curation_level: 1
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!)
incomplete_fixes:
- note: 
  commit: 
- note: 
  commit: 
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: 
  commits:
  - note: This commit occurred about a month earlier and included two fixes, one for
      CVE-2017-12615 and the other for CVE-2017-12616. The change altered some files
      outside of the CVE-2017-12617 fix commit. Most of the changes were to check
      if files existed before executing some of the code as part of the fix for CVE-2017-12616.
    commit: 07dc0ea2745f0afab6415f22b16a29f1c6de5727
  - 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 Git commit SHA in "commit" below, and any notes about how this
  was discovered in the "note" field.
  Refer to our instructions on how to find a Git SHA from an SVN revision.
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 Chromium-specific
  stuff. Remove references to versions, specific filenames, and other jargon
  that outsiders to Chromium 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 fix commits for this vulnerability that had to be corrected
  at a later date.