CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2013-4810Exploited in the wildNVD status: Analyzed

HP Multiple Products Remote Code Execution

CVE-2013-4810 is a critical-severity improper control of generation of code vulnerability in Application Lifecycle Management from HP, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. CISA added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue on March 25, 2022, which means attacks have been observed in the wild.

Patch now

Attackers are already exploiting this vulnerability, according to CISA.

What to do

  1. Check which version of Application Lifecycle Management you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
  2. CISA's required action: Apply updates per vendor instructions.
  3. Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
HPApplication Lifecycle ManagementNot specified in the recordNot stated
HPProcurve Manager3.20; 4.0Not stated

Version data comes from NVD's product matching. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.

How the severity score breaks down

Attack vector
NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
Attack complexity
LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
Privileges required
NoneNo account or login is needed.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
Confidentiality
HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
Integrity
HighData or code can be modified at will.
Availability
HighThe component can be taken down completely.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.

Scoring systemScoreSeverityScored by
CVSS 3.19.8CriticalNVD
CVSS 3.19.8CriticalCISA (ADP)
CVSS 2.010.0HighNVD

Official description

HP ProCurve Manager (PCM) 3.20 and 4.0, PCM+ 3.20 and 4.0, Identity Driven Manager (IDM) 4.0, and Application Lifecycle Management allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a marshalled object to (1) EJBInvokerServlet or (2) JMXInvokerServlet, aka ZDI-CAN-1760. NOTE: this is probably a duplicate of CVE-2007-1036, CVE-2010-0738, and/or CVE-2012-0874.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Improper Control of Generation of Code

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
  • Run your code in a jail or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.

More Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities (CWE-94)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue.
  3. Deadline for US federal agencies to remediate, set by CISA.
  4. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: active, automatable: yes, technical impact: total).
  5. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Third-party and government advisories

Technical write-ups (may include proof of concept)

Recent Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.