DBLTek GoIP devices (models GoIP 1, 4, 8, 16, and 32) contain an undocumented vendor backdoor in the Telnet administrative interface that a…
DBLTek GoIP devices (models GoIP 1, 4, 8, 16, and 32) contain an undocumented vendor backdoor in the Telnet administrative interface that allows remote authentication as an undocumented user via a proprietary challenge–response scheme which is fundamentally flawed. Because the challenge response can be computed from the challenge itself, a remote attacker can authenticate without knowledge of a secret and obtain a root shell on the device. This can lead to persistent remote code execution, full device compromise, and arbitrary control of the device and any managed services. The firmware used within these devices was updated in December 2016 to make this vulnerability more complex to exploit. However, it is unknown if DBLTek has taken steps to fully mitigate.
The device includes chicken bits or undocumented features that can create entry points for unauthorized actors.
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1242.html →Open in CWE collection →An adversary searches for and invokes interfaces or functionality that the target system designers did not intend to be publicly available. If interfaces fail to authenticate requests, the attacker may be able to invoke functionality they are not authorized for.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/36.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary leverages a legitimate capability of an application in such a way as to achieve a negative technical impact. The system functionality is not altered or modified but used in a way that was not intended. This is often accomplished through the overuse of a specific functionality or by leveraging functionality with design flaws that enables the adversary to gain access to unauthorized, sensitive data.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/212.html →Open in CAPEC collection →