Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adding HEAD bypass support to JBoss Invoke Deploy #5035

Closed
0x42424242 opened this issue Mar 30, 2015 · 1 comment
Closed

Adding HEAD bypass support to JBoss Invoke Deploy #5035

0x42424242 opened this issue Mar 30, 2015 · 1 comment
Labels
attic Older submissions that we still want to work on again feature module

Comments

@0x42424242
Copy link

JBoss has a number of administration interfaces along with known vulnerabilities. Two commonly spoken about vulnerabilities are as follows.

CVE-2010-0738 (HEAD Verb Authorisation Bypass)

This vulnerability is typically been talked about in context with the jmx-console. Essentially POST and GET requests require authorization however this could be bypassed by using a HEAD request instead of a GET. Several Metasploit modules take advantage of this (jboss_deploymentfilerepository / jboss_bshdeployer / jboss_maindeployer) and support the HEAD verb.

CVE-2007-1036 (Exposed Invokers)

This vulnerability relates to no password protection surrounding the Java invokers (JMXInvokerServlet / EJBInvokerServlet) which also allow the ability to invoke MBeans directly. This is taken advantage of with the jboss_invoke_deploy module.

Suggestion

During an engagement I've discovered that the HEAD verb bypass also applies to the JMXInvokerServlet. It's unknown if this is due to insufficient patching or if previous patches don't apply appropriate access controls to the JMXInvokerServlet by default.

I believe adding the HEAD verb support to jboss_invoke_deploy could be beneficial if it's possible.

Cheers.

@adfoster-r7 adfoster-r7 added the attic Older submissions that we still want to work on again label Nov 21, 2023
Copy link

Thanks for your contribution to Metasploit Framework! We've looked at this issue, and unfortunately we do not currently have the bandwidth to prioritize this issue.

We've labeled this as attic and closed it for now. If you believe this issue has been closed in error, or that it should be prioritized, please comment with additional information.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
attic Older submissions that we still want to work on again feature module
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants