Bug 901574 - Spring Framework: Remote code execution with Expression Language injection
Summary: Spring Framework: Remote code execution with Expression Language injection
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 737608
Alias: None
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
high
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Red Hat Product Security
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard: impact=important,public=20130117,repo...
Keywords: Security
Depends On:
Blocks: 901575
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-01-18 14:47 UTC by Jan Lieskovsky
Modified: 2019-06-08 19:23 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

(edit)
Clone Of:
(edit)
Last Closed: 2013-01-18 16:16:44 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jan Lieskovsky 2013-01-18 14:47:24 UTC
It was found that in certain circumstances, Spring framework evaluated Expression Language (EL) expressions twice: once by the container, and once by the tag. A remote attacker could use this flaw to execute arbitrary code in the context of the application server, or to obtain sensitive information from the server, via a specially-crafted HTTP request. 

References:
[1] http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/011713-java-spring-framework-265923.html
[2] http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/30282/remote-code-vulnerability-in-spring-framework-for-java/

Comment 1 Jan Lieskovsky 2013-01-18 16:16:44 UTC
SpringSource security team has confirmed that this is NOT a new security flaw (other than original CVE-2011-2730 issue), but rather just a new exploit was published for the original CVE-2011-2730 issue demonstrating remote code execution was possible for the original flaw:
[3] http://support.springsource.com/security/cve-2011-2730

From the "History" section of [3]:
'2012-12-06: Updated advisory with finding by Dan Amodio that issue may lead to remote code execution'

Also, the following independent article:
[4] http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/The-ghost-of-a-Spring-Framework-bug-haunts-old-code-1786850.html

clarifies the confusion (that might appear) due the newly published advisories [1], [2].

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 737608 ***


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.