GSD-2017-15702
Vulnerability from gsd - Updated: 2023-12-13 01:20Details
In Apache Qpid Broker-J 0.18 through 0.32, if the broker is configured with different authentication providers on different ports one of which is an HTTP port, then the broker can be tricked by a remote unauthenticated attacker connecting to the HTTP port into using an authentication provider that was configured on a different port. The attacker still needs valid credentials with the authentication provider on the spoofed port. This becomes an issue when the spoofed port has weaker authentication protection (e.g., anonymous access, default accounts) and is normally protected by firewall rules or similar which can be circumvented by this vulnerability. AMQP ports are not affected. Versions 6.0.0 and newer are not affected.
Aliases
Aliases
{
"GSD": {
"alias": "CVE-2017-15702",
"description": "In Apache Qpid Broker-J 0.18 through 0.32, if the broker is configured with different authentication providers on different ports one of which is an HTTP port, then the broker can be tricked by a remote unauthenticated attacker connecting to the HTTP port into using an authentication provider that was configured on a different port. The attacker still needs valid credentials with the authentication provider on the spoofed port. This becomes an issue when the spoofed port has weaker authentication protection (e.g., anonymous access, default accounts) and is normally protected by firewall rules or similar which can be circumvented by this vulnerability. AMQP ports are not affected. Versions 6.0.0 and newer are not affected.",
"id": "GSD-2017-15702"
},
"gsd": {
"metadata": {
"exploitCode": "unknown",
"remediation": "unknown",
"reportConfidence": "confirmed",
"type": "vulnerability"
},
"osvSchema": {
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-15702"
],
"details": "In Apache Qpid Broker-J 0.18 through 0.32, if the broker is configured with different authentication providers on different ports one of which is an HTTP port, then the broker can be tricked by a remote unauthenticated attacker connecting to the HTTP port into using an authentication provider that was configured on a different port. The attacker still needs valid credentials with the authentication provider on the spoofed port. This becomes an issue when the spoofed port has weaker authentication protection (e.g., anonymous access, default accounts) and is normally protected by firewall rules or similar which can be circumvented by this vulnerability. AMQP ports are not affected. Versions 6.0.0 and newer are not affected.",
"id": "GSD-2017-15702",
"modified": "2023-12-13T01:20:58.828048Z",
"schema_version": "1.4.0"
}
},
"namespaces": {
"cve.org": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "security@apache.org",
"DATE_PUBLIC": "2017-11-30T00:00:00",
"ID": "CVE-2017-15702",
"STATE": "PUBLIC"
},
"affects": {
"vendor": {
"vendor_data": [
{
"product": {
"product_data": [
{
"product_name": "Apache Qpid Broker-J",
"version": {
"version_data": [
{
"version_value": "0.18 through 0.32"
}
]
}
}
]
},
"vendor_name": "Apache Software Foundation"
}
]
}
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "In Apache Qpid Broker-J 0.18 through 0.32, if the broker is configured with different authentication providers on different ports one of which is an HTTP port, then the broker can be tricked by a remote unauthenticated attacker connecting to the HTTP port into using an authentication provider that was configured on a different port. The attacker still needs valid credentials with the authentication provider on the spoofed port. This becomes an issue when the spoofed port has weaker authentication protection (e.g., anonymous access, default accounts) and is normally protected by firewall rules or similar which can be circumvented by this vulnerability. AMQP ports are not affected. Versions 6.0.0 and newer are not affected."
}
]
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "Authentication vulnerability"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-8039",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"url": "https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-8039"
},
{
"name": "102040",
"refsource": "BID",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/102040"
},
{
"name": "[dev] 20171130 [SECURITY] [CVE-2017-15702] Apache Qpid Broker-J Authentication Vulnerability on HTTP Ports",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/59d241e30db23b8b0af26bb273f789aa1f08515d3dc1a3868d3ba090@%3Cdev.qpid.apache.org%3E"
},
{
"name": "https://qpid.apache.org/cves/CVE-2017-15702.html",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"url": "https://qpid.apache.org/cves/CVE-2017-15702.html"
}
]
}
},
"gitlab.com": {
"advisories": [
{
"affected_range": "[0.18,0.32]",
"affected_versions": "All versions starting from 0.18 up to 0.32",
"cvss_v2": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P",
"cvss_v3": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-1035",
"CWE-937"
],
"date": "2021-08-30",
"description": "In Apache Qpid Broker-J 0.18 through 0.32, if the broker is configured with different authentication providers on different ports one of which is an HTTP port, then the broker can be tricked by a remote unauthenticated attacker connecting to the HTTP port into using an authentication provider that was configured on a different port. The attacker still needs valid credentials with the authentication provider on the spoofed port. This becomes an issue when the spoofed port has weaker authentication protection (e.g., anonymous access, default accounts) and is normally protected by firewall rules or similar which can be circumvented by this vulnerability. AMQP ports are not affected. Versions 6.0.0 and newer are not affected.",
"fixed_versions": [
"6.0.0"
],
"identifier": "CVE-2017-15702",
"identifiers": [
"GHSA-269m-695x-j34p",
"CVE-2017-15702"
],
"not_impacted": "All versions before 0.18, all versions after 0.32",
"package_slug": "maven/org.apache.qpid/qpid-broker",
"pubdate": "2018-10-19",
"solution": "Upgrade to version 6.0.0 or above.",
"title": "Moderate severity vulnerability that affects org.apache.qpid:qpid-broker",
"urls": [
"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-15702",
"https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-269m-695x-j34p",
"https://qpid.apache.org/cves/CVE-2017-15702.html"
],
"uuid": "beaeb747-6ab7-48de-9e46-a5678b27214c"
}
]
},
"nvd.nist.gov": {
"configurations": {
"CVE_data_version": "4.0",
"nodes": [
{
"children": [],
"cpe_match": [
{
"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:apache:qpid_broker-j:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe_name": [],
"versionEndIncluding": "0.32",
"versionStartIncluding": "0.18",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"operator": "OR"
}
]
},
"cve": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "security@apache.org",
"ID": "CVE-2017-15702"
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "In Apache Qpid Broker-J 0.18 through 0.32, if the broker is configured with different authentication providers on different ports one of which is an HTTP port, then the broker can be tricked by a remote unauthenticated attacker connecting to the HTTP port into using an authentication provider that was configured on a different port. The attacker still needs valid credentials with the authentication provider on the spoofed port. This becomes an issue when the spoofed port has weaker authentication protection (e.g., anonymous access, default accounts) and is normally protected by firewall rules or similar which can be circumvented by this vulnerability. AMQP ports are not affected. Versions 6.0.0 and newer are not affected."
}
]
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "NVD-CWE-noinfo"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "https://qpid.apache.org/cves/CVE-2017-15702.html",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"tags": [
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "https://qpid.apache.org/cves/CVE-2017-15702.html"
},
{
"name": "[dev] 20171130 [SECURITY] [CVE-2017-15702] Apache Qpid Broker-J Authentication Vulnerability on HTTP Ports",
"refsource": "MLIST",
"tags": [
"Issue Tracking",
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/59d241e30db23b8b0af26bb273f789aa1f08515d3dc1a3868d3ba090@%3Cdev.qpid.apache.org%3E"
},
{
"name": "https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-8039",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"tags": [
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-8039"
},
{
"name": "102040",
"refsource": "BID",
"tags": [
"Third Party Advisory",
"VDB Entry"
],
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/102040"
}
]
}
},
"impact": {
"baseMetricV2": {
"cvssV2": {
"accessComplexity": "LOW",
"accessVector": "NETWORK",
"authentication": "NONE",
"availabilityImpact": "PARTIAL",
"baseScore": 7.5,
"confidentialityImpact": "PARTIAL",
"integrityImpact": "PARTIAL",
"vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P",
"version": "2.0"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 10.0,
"impactScore": 6.4,
"obtainAllPrivilege": false,
"obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
"obtainUserPrivilege": false,
"severity": "HIGH",
"userInteractionRequired": false
},
"baseMetricV3": {
"cvssV3": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 9.8,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
"impactScore": 5.9
}
},
"lastModifiedDate": "2023-05-22T15:46Z",
"publishedDate": "2017-12-01T15:29Z"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…