LibreOffice has a feature where documents can specify that pre-installed macros can be executed on various script events such as mouse-over…
LibreOffice has a feature where documents can specify that pre-installed macros can be executed on various script events such as mouse-over, document-open etc. Access is intended to be restricted to scripts under the share/Scripts/python, user/Scripts/python sub-directories of the LibreOffice install. Protection was added, to address CVE-2019-9852, to avoid a directory traversal attack where scripts in arbitrary locations on the file system could be executed by employing a URL encoding attack to defeat the path verification step. However this protection could be bypassed by taking advantage of a flaw in how LibreOffice assembled the final script URL location directly from components of the passed in path as opposed to solely from the sanitized output of the path verification step. This issue affects: Document Foundation LibreOffice 6.2 versions prior to 6.2.7; 6.3 versions prior to 6.3.1.
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/22.html →Open in CWE collection →The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/284.html →Open in CWE collection →An adversary leverages the capability to execute their own script by embedding it within other scripts that the target software is likely to execute due to programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute scripts.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/19.html →Open in CAPEC collection →This attack targets the encoding of the URL combined with the encoding of the slash characters. An attacker can take advantage of the multiple ways of encoding a URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. A URL may contain special character that need special syntax handling in order to be interpreted. Special characters are represented using a percentage character followed by two digits representing the octet code of the original character (%HEX-CODE). For instance US-ASCII space character would be represented with %20. This is often referred as escaped ending or percent-encoding. Since the server decodes the URL from the requests, it may restrict the access to some URL paths by validating and filtering out the URL requests it received. An attacker will try to craft an URL with a sequence of special characters which once interpreted by the server will be equivalent to a forbidden URL. It can be difficult to protect against this attack since the URL can contain other format of encoding such as UTF-8 encoding, Unicode-encoding, etc.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/64.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/76.html →Open in CAPEC collection →This attack targets the use of the backslash in alternate encoding. An adversary can provide a backslash as a leading character and causes a parser to believe that the next character is special. This is called an escape. By using that trick, the adversary tries to exploit alternate ways to encode the same character which leads to filter problems and opens avenues to attack.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/78.html →Open in CAPEC collection →This attack targets the encoding of the Slash characters. An adversary would try to exploit common filtering problems related to the use of the slashes characters to gain access to resources on the target host. Directory-driven systems, such as file systems and databases, typically use the slash character to indicate traversal between directories or other container components. For murky historical reasons, PCs (and, as a result, Microsoft OSs) choose to use a backslash, whereas the UNIX world typically makes use of the forward slash. The schizophrenic result is that many MS-based systems are required to understand both forms of the slash. This gives the adversary many opportunities to discover and abuse a number of common filtering problems. The goal of this pattern is to discover server software that only applies filters to one version, but not the other.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary uses path manipulation methods to exploit insufficient input validation of a target to obtain access to data that should be not be retrievable by ordinary well-formed requests. A typical variety of this attack involves specifying a path to a desired file together with dot-dot-slash characters, resulting in the file access API or function traversing out of the intended directory structure and into the root file system. By replacing or modifying the expected path information the access function or API retrieves the file desired by the attacker. These attacks either involve the attacker providing a complete path to a targeted file or using control characters (e.g. path separators (/ or \) and/or dots (.)) to reach desired directories or files.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/126.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary installs or adds malicious logic (also known as malware) into a seemingly benign component of a fielded system. This logic is often hidden from the user of the system and works behind the scenes to achieve negative impacts. With the proliferation of mass digital storage and inexpensive multimedia devices, Bluetooth and 802.11 support, new attack vectors for spreading malware are emerging for things we once thought of as innocuous greeting cards, picture frames, or digital projectors. This pattern of attack focuses on systems already fielded and used in operation as opposed to systems and their components that are still under development and part of the supply chain.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/441.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary exploits a weakness in access control to modify the execution parameters of a Windows service. The goal of this attack is to execute a malicious binary in place of an existing service.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/478.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary exploits a weakness in authorization and installs a new root certificate on a compromised system. Certificates are commonly used for establishing secure TLS/SSL communications within a web browser. When a user attempts to browse a website that presents a certificate that is not trusted an error message will be displayed to warn the user of the security risk. Depending on the security settings, the browser may not allow the user to establish a connection to the website. Adversaries have used this technique to avoid security warnings prompting users when compromised systems connect over HTTPS to adversary controlled web servers that spoof legitimate websites in order to collect login credentials.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/479.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary, through a previously installed malicious application, issues an intent directed toward a specific trusted application's component in an attempt to achieve a variety of different objectives including modification of data, information disclosure, and data injection. Components that have been unintentionally exported and made public are subject to this type of an attack. If the component trusts the intent's action without verififcation, then the target application performs the functionality at the adversary's request, helping the adversary achieve the desired negative technical impact.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/502.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary, through a malicious web page, accesses application specific functionality by leveraging interfaces registered through WebView's addJavascriptInterface API. Once an interface is registered to WebView through addJavascriptInterface, it becomes global and all pages loaded in the WebView can call this interface.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/503.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An attacker with access to data files and processes on a victim's system injects malicious data into critical operational data during configuration or recalibration, causing the victim's system to perform in a suboptimal manner that benefits the adversary.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/536.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary obtains unauthorized information due to insecure or incomplete data deletion in a multi-tenant environment. If a cloud provider fails to completely delete storage and data from former cloud tenants' systems/resources, once these resources are allocated to new, potentially malicious tenants, the latter can probe the provided resources for sensitive information still there.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/546.html →Open in CAPEC collection →When an operating system starts, it also starts programs called services or daemons. Adversaries may install a new service which will be executed at startup (on a Windows system, by modifying the registry). The service name may be disguised by using a name from a related operating system or benign software. Services are usually run with elevated privileges.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/550.html →Open in CAPEC collection →When an operating system starts, it also starts programs called services or daemons. Modifying existing services may break existing services or may enable services that are disabled/not commonly used.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/551.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary exploits a weakness in authentication to install malware that alters the functionality and information provide by targeted operating system API calls. Often referred to as rootkits, it is often used to hide the presence of programs, files, network connections, services, drivers, and other system components.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/552.html →Open in CAPEC collection →When a file is opened, its file handler is checked to determine which program opens the file. File handlers are configuration properties of many operating systems. Applications can modify the file handler for a given file extension to call an arbitrary program when a file with the given extension is opened.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/556.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary exploits weaknesses in privilege management or access control to replace a trusted executable with a malicious version and enable the execution of malware when that trusted executable is called.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/558.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary manipulates the files in a shared location by adding malicious programs, scripts, or exploit code to valid content. Once a user opens the shared content, the tainted content is executed.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/562.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversaries may add malicious content to a website through the open file share and then browse to that content with a web browser to cause the server to execute the content. The malicious content will typically run under the context and permissions of the web server process, often resulting in local system or administrative privileges depending on how the web server is configured.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/563.html →Open in CAPEC collection →Operating system allows logon scripts to be run whenever a specific user or users logon to a system. If adversaries can access these scripts, they may insert additional code into the logon script. This code can allow them to maintain persistence or move laterally within an enclave because it is executed every time the affected user or users logon to a computer. Modifying logon scripts can effectively bypass workstation and enclave firewalls. Depending on the access configuration of the logon scripts, either local credentials or a remote administrative account may be necessary.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/564.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary exploits a weakness in access control to disable security tools so that detection does not occur. This can take the form of killing processes, deleting registry keys so that tools do not start at run time, deleting log files, or other methods.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/578.html →Open in CAPEC collection →| Product | Vendor | Status |
|---|---|---|
| libreoffice | Tracked | |
| libreoffice | Tracked | |
| libreoffice | Tracked | |
| libreoffice | Tracked | |
| libreoffice | Tracked | |
| libreoffice | Tracked | |
| libreoffice | Tracked | |
| libreoffice | Tracked | |
| debian_linux | * | Tracked |
| enterprise_linux | * | Tracked |
| fedora | * | Tracked |
| leap | * | Tracked |
| libreoffice | * | Tracked |
| ubuntu_linux | * | Tracked |