To: vuln.lists
Re: SmarterStats 6.0 Owned and Exposed
Private Note: Rewrite any way you'd like
-------------------------
Hoyt LLC Research | SmarterStats 6.0, OS Command Execution, Directory
Traversal, DoS, Coordinated Disclosure

Author: Hoyt LLC Research | https://xss.cx | https://cloudscan.me

Vendor: SmarterTools
Application: SmarterStats 6.0
Bug(s): Directory Traversal, File Upload, OS Execution, XML Injection, SQL
Injection, DoS

Patch: The Vendor has released SmarterStats Version 6.2 at URI
https://www.smartertools.com/smarterstats/web-analytics-seo-software-download.aspx

Timeline: Notify Vendor 10-12-2010 on SmarterStats Version 6.0
Full Disclosure Report available at URI
https://xss.cx/examples/smarterstats-60-oscommandinjection-directorytraversal-xml-sqlinjection.html.htmland
https://www.cloudscan.me/2011/03/smarterstats-60-full-disclosure-xss-os.html

SmarterStats 6.0, Full Disclosure, OS Command Execution, Directory
Traversal, DoS, Coordinated Disclosure
SmarterStats 6.0, Full Disclosure, OS Command Execution, Directory
Traversal, DoS, Coordinated Disclosure

Author: Hoyt LLC Research | https://xss.cx | https://cloudscan.me

Vendor: SmarterTools
Application: SmarterStats 6.0
Bug(s): Directory Traversal, File Upload, OS Execution, XML Injection, SQL
Injection, DoS

Patch: The Vendor has released SmarterStats Version 6.2 at URI
https://www.smartertools.com/smarterstats/web-analytics-seo-software-download.aspx

Timeline: Notify Vendor 10-12-2010 on SmarterStats Version 6.0

Publication by Hoyt LLC Research on March 11, 2011 at URI
https://www.cloudscan.me/2011/03/smarterstats-60-full-disclosure-xss-os.html

Hoyt LLC Research Blog URI
https://www.cloudscan.me/2011/03/smarterstats-60-full-disclosure-xss-os.html
Full Disclosure Reports from Burp Suite Pro 1.3.09
https://xss.cx/examples/smarterstats-60-oscommandinjection-directorytraversal-xml-sqlinjection.html.html

Summary Statement:

CAPEC-88: OS Command Injection | Summary

An attacker can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate
privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying
operating system.

CAPEC-213: Directory Traversal + CAPEC-48: Passing Local Filenames to
Functions That Expect a URL | Summary

This attack relies on client side code to access local files and resources
instead of URLs. When the client browser is expecting a URL string, but
instead receives a request for a local file, that execution is likely to
occur in the browser process space with the browser's authority to local
files. The attacker can send the results of this request to the local files
out to a site that they control. This attack may be used to steal sensitive
authentication data (either local or remote), or to gain system profile
information to launch further attacks.

1. OS command injection next
There are 6 instances of this issue:
/Admin/frmSite.aspx [STTTState cookie]
/Admin/frmSite.aspx [ctl00%24MPH%24txtAdminNewPassword_SettingText
parameter]
/Admin/frmSite.aspx [ctl00%24MPH%24txtSmarterLogDirectory parameter]
/Admin/frmSite.aspx
[ctl00%24MPH%24ucSiteSeoSearchEngineSettings%24chklistEngines_SettingCheckBox%2414
parameter]
/Admin/frmSite.aspx
[ctl00%24MPH%24ucSiteSeoSettings%24txtSeoMaxKeywords_SettingText parameter]
/Admin/frmSite.aspx [ctl00_MPH_grdLogLocations_HiddenLSR parameter]

Issue background

Operating system command injection vulnerabilities arise when an application
incorporates user-controllable data into a command that is processed by a
shell command interpreter. If the user data is not strictly validated, an
attacker can use shell metacharacters to modify the command to be executed,
and inject arbitrary further commands that will be executed by the server.

OS command injection vulnerabilities are usually very serious and may lead
to compromise of the server hosting the application, or of the application's
own data and functionality. The exact potential for exploitation may depend
upon the security context in which the command is executed, and the
privileges which this context has regarding sensitive resources on the
server.
Issue remediation
If possible, applications should avoid incorporating user-controllable data
into operating system commands. In almost every situation, there are safer
alternative methods of performing server-level tasks, which cannot be
manipulated to perform additional commands than the one intended.

If it is considered unavoidable to incorporate user-supplied data into
operating system commands, the following two layers of defence should be
used to prevent attacks:
The user data should be strictly validated. Ideally, a whitelist of specific
accepted values should be used. Otherwise, only short alphanumeric strings
should be accepted. Input containing any other data, including any
conceivable shell metacharacter or whitespace, should be rejected.
The application should use command APIs that launch a specific process via
its name and command-line parameters, rather than passing a command string
to a shell interpreter that supports command chaining and redirection. For
example, the Java API Runtime.exec and the ASP.NET API Process.Start do not
support shell metacharacters. This defence can mitigate the impact of an
attack even in the event that an attacker circumvents the input validation
defences.