Suricata before 4.0.4 is prone to an HTTP detection bypass vulnerability in detect.c and stream-tcp.c. If a malicious server breaks a nor…
Suricata before 4.0.4 is prone to an HTTP detection bypass vulnerability in detect.c and stream-tcp.c. If a malicious server breaks a normal TCP flow and sends data before the 3-way handshake is complete, then the data sent by the malicious server will be accepted by web clients such as a web browser or Linux CLI utilities, but ignored by Suricata IDS signatures. This mostly affects IDS signatures for the HTTP protocol and TCP stream content; signatures for TCP packets will inspect such network traffic as usual.
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html →Open in CWE collection →In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/1.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/17.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An attacker, armed with the cipher text and the encryption algorithm used, performs an exhaustive (brute force) search on the key space to determine the key that decrypts the cipher text to obtain the plaintext.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An attack of this type exploits vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by communicating directly with the server where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/22.html →Open in CAPEC 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 →SOA and Web Services often use a registry to perform look up, get schema information, and metadata about services. A poisoned registry can redirect (think phishing for servers) the service requester to a malicious service provider, provide incorrect information in schema or metadata, and delete information about service provider interfaces.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/51.html →Open in CAPEC collection →This attack utilizes a REST(REpresentational State Transfer)-style applications' trust in the system resources and environment to obtain sensitive data once SSL is terminated.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/57.html →Open in CAPEC collection →This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/59.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary passively sniffs network communications and captures application code bound for an authorized client. Once obtained, they can use it as-is, or through reverse-engineering glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server. Such code may belong to a dynamic update to the client, a patch being applied to a client component or any such interaction where the client is authorized to communicate with the server.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/65.html →Open in CAPEC collection →https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/74.html →Open in CAPEC collection →
An attacker employs forceful browsing (direct URL entry) to access portions of a website that are otherwise unreachable. Usually, a front controller or similar design pattern is employed to protect access to portions of a web application. Forceful browsing enables an attacker to access information, perform privileged operations and otherwise reach sections of the web application that have been improperly protected.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/87.html →Open in CAPEC collection →Cross Site Tracing (XST) enables an adversary to steal the victim's session cookie and possibly other authentication credentials transmitted in the header of the HTTP request when the victim's browser communicates to a destination system's web server.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/107.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/127.html →Open in CAPEC collection →The attacker may submit malicious code of another language to obtain access to privileges that were not intentionally exposed by the sandbox, thus escaping the sandbox. For instance, Java code cannot perform unsafe operations, such as modifying arbitrary memory locations, due to restrictions placed on it by the Byte code Verifier and the JVM. If allowed, Java code can call directly into native C code, which may perform unsafe operations, such as call system calls and modify arbitrary memory locations on their behalf. To provide isolation, Java does not grant untrusted code with unmediated access to native C code. Instead, the sandboxed code is typically allowed to call some subset of the pre-existing native code that is part of standard libraries.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/237.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An attacker exploits the underlying complexity of a data structure that allows for both signed and unsigned content, to cause unsigned data to be processed as though it were signed data.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/477.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary gains access to an application, service, or device with the privileges of an authorized or privileged user by escaping the confines of a virtualized environment. The adversary is then able to access resources or execute unauthorized code within the host environment, generally with the privileges of the user running the virtualized process. Successfully executing an attack of this type is often the first step in executing more complex attacks.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/480.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary can exploit a flaw in Bluetooth key negotiation allowing them to decrypt information sent between two devices communicating via Bluetooth. The adversary uses an Adversary in the Middle setup to modify packets sent between the two devices during the authentication process, specifically the entropy bits. Knowledge of the number of entropy bits will allow the attacker to easily decrypt information passing over the line of communication.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/668.html →Open in CAPEC collection →| Product | Vendor | Status |
|---|---|---|
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| suricata | Tracked | |
| debian_linux | * | Tracked |
| suricata | * | Tracked |