Improper Input Validation in Teltonika firmware TRB2_R_00.02.04.01 allows a remote, authenticated attacker to gain root privileges by uploa…
Improper Input Validation in Teltonika firmware TRB2_R_00.02.04.01 allows a remote, authenticated attacker to gain root privileges by uploading a malicious package file.
The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/494.html →Open in CWE collection →An attacker initiates a series of events designed to cause a user, program, server, or device to perform actions which undermine the integrity of software code, device data structures, or device firmware, achieving the modification of the target's integrity to achieve an insecure state.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/184.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An attacker uses deceptive methods to cause a user or an automated process to download and install dangerous code that originates from an attacker controlled source. There are several variations to this strategy of attack.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/185.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary uses deceptive methods to cause a user or an automated process to download and install dangerous code believed to be a valid update that originates from an adversary controlled source.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/186.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An attacker exploits two layers of weaknesses in server or client software for automated update mechanisms to undermine the integrity of the target code-base. The first weakness involves a failure to properly authenticate a server as a source of update or patch content. This type of weakness typically results from authentication mechanisms which can be defeated, allowing a hostile server to satisfy the criteria that establish a trust relationship. The second weakness is a systemic failure to validate the identity and integrity of code downloaded from a remote location, hence the inability to distinguish malicious code from a legitimate update.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/187.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An attacker introduces malicious code to the victim's system by altering the payload of a software update, allowing for additional compromise or site disruption at the victim location. These manual, or user-assisted attacks, vary from requiring the user to download and run an executable, to as streamlined as tricking the user to click a URL. Attacks which aim at penetrating a specific network infrastructure often rely upon secondary attack methods to achieve the desired impact. Spamming, for example, is a common method employed as an secondary attack vector. Thus the attacker has in their arsenal a choice of initial attack vectors ranging from traditional SMTP/POP/IMAP spamming and its varieties, to web-application mechanisms which commonly implement both chat and rich HTML messaging within the user interface.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/533.html →Open in CAPEC collection →Adversaries implant malicious code in open source software (OSS) libraries to have it widely distributed, as OSS is commonly downloaded by developers and other users to incorporate into software development projects. The adversary can have a particular system in mind to target, or the implantation can be the first stage of follow-on attacks on many systems.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/538.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An attackers uses identify or content spoofing to trick a client into performing an automated software update from a malicious source. A malicious automated software update that leverages spoofing can include content or identity spoofing as well as protocol spoofing. Content or identity spoofing attacks can trigger updates in software by embedding scripted mechanisms within a malicious web page, which masquerades as a legitimate update source. Scripting mechanisms communicate with software components and trigger updates from locations specified by the attackers' server. The result is the client believing there is a legitimate software update available but instead downloading a malicious update from the attacker.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/657.html →Open in CAPEC collection →https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/662.html →Open in CAPEC collection →
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/691.html →Open in CAPEC collection →
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/692.html →Open in CAPEC collection →
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html →Open in CAPEC collection →
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/695.html →Open in CAPEC collection →