Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:39:46 -0400 (EDT) From: cve-assign@...re.org To: pedrib@...il.com Cc: cve-assign@...re.org, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Remote code execution in Pimcore CMS -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I have discovered a PHP object injection in Pimcore CMS. > https://github.com/pedrib/PoC/blob/master/pimcore-2.1.0.txt MITRE currently doesn't look for "CVE request" in the Subject line. For some posts, the right number of CVE IDs can be determined more quickly than for others. So, in this case, we'll just ask for additional information. pimcore-2.1.0.txt says: Payload  abuses several Zend classes to achieve remote code execution and then says: payload  does not work on Pimcore versions between 2.0.1 and 2.1.0 Is it also true that: payload  does not work on Pimcore versions between 2.0.1 and 2.1.0 ? The payload  code is obviously a close derivative of the payload  code, but they are not identical. We're not sure whether there was an important reason for mentioning  specifically. For this statement: Version 2.0.0 might be vulnerable if anyone is running it on PHP versions <= 5.3.3... which according to the developers is not possible, but the requirement was only enforced in 2.0.1. First, we think that "Version 2.0.0 might be vulnerable" means "Version 2.0.0 might be vulnerable to exactly the same remote code execution problem that existed in 1.4.9 to 1.4.10 (inclusive)." Also, we think you mean that the correct set of affected versions has two possibilities. The set is possibly disputed by the developers, but it is either: 1.4.9 to 1.4.10 (inclusive): Remote code execution (when server is running PHP <= 5.3.3). or 1.4.9 to 1.4.10 (inclusive) and 2.0.0: Remote code execution (when server is running PHP <= 5.3.3). Also, based on http://sourceforge.net/projects/pimcorebuilds/files/archive/ it seems that version 1.4.10 was the last 1.x version. In other words, it's not a situation in which the problem was fixed within a later 1.x version, but then reappeared in 2.0.0 because of a regression. Is all of this correct? It seems very likely that the right number of CVE IDs is two, but the questions above can clarify that. (Separate CVE IDs are needed when the usable attack methodology differs across versions.) - -- CVE assignment team, MITRE CVE Numbering Authority M/S M300 202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730 USA [ PGP key available through http://cve.mitre.org/cve/request_id.html ] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (SunOS) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTUrQLAAoJEKllVAevmvmskG0H/Ri4cooLcXXm54PAtXLu6aX7 WdlXx2KQuypsyada/3rXXOSNRqowJoBJiB3KGeyt6Y3SUiLG/2hsmoOqMotEXyMB TRTkbKn0PZOGZMCzaAQN2iwJnAPfcU5I6YEP2s7D6DjiT0KXSGh5kRsuolVeWqMD FPxxxp3blLDj+7rVX59PLJREYN8y2go7qIKVdAzv+aZ4nrKeIt+c0msbBfyqNvxe +vEW6ByZw8sFxFIFMUXhS2v6GN5kssFMWNA46594BzQcwaXIZ4knqTAENgbarXp7 eAojDQ7MVTDnWy5oqmO3Ma3Ys5uURpWMNaQtyOhOU+JK1wTmuyj0JjessLEFwXA= =kCC0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.