New security Vulnerabilities
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:59 pm
In our quarterly Nessus Vulnerability scan which is required by PCI, our new Nagios XI server was found with several security vulnerabilities. All of these vulnerabilities are showing to be on TCP port 443 of our Nagios XI server. We have already updated to Nagios XI 5.2.2.
1. CGI Generic Cookie Injection Scripting
Synopsis: The remote web server is prone to cookie injection attacks.
Description: The remote web server hosts at least one CGI script that fails to adequately sanitize request strings with malicious JavaScript. By leveraging this issue, an attacker may be able to inject arbitrary
cookies. Depending on the structure of the web application, it may be possible to launch a 'session fixation' attack using this mechanism.
2. CGI Generic HTML Injections (quick test)
Synopsis: The remote web server may be prone to HTML injections.
Description: The remote web server hosts CGI scripts that fail to adequately sanitize request strings with malicious JavaScript. The remote web server may be vulnerable to IFRAME injections or cross-site scripting attacks
3. CGI Generic XSS (extended patterns)
Synopsis: The remote web server is prone to cross-site scripting attacks.
Description: The remote web server hosts one or more CGI scripts that fail to adequately sanitize request strings with malicious JavaScript. By leveraging this issue, an attacker may be able to cause arbitrary HTML
and script code to be executed in a user's browser within the security context of the affected site. These XSS vulnerabilities are likely to be 'non-persistent' or 'reflected'."
4. Web Application Potentially Vulnerable to Clickjacking
Synopsis: The remote web server may fail to mitigate a class of web application vulnerabilities.
Description: The remote web server does not set an X-Frame-Options response header in all content responses. This could potentially expose the site to a clickjacking or UI Redress attack wherein an attacker can trick a user into clicking an area of the vulnerable page that is different than what the user perceives the page to be. This can result in a user performing fraudulent or malicious transactions.
X-Frame-Options has been proposed by Microsoft as a way to mitigate clickjacking attacks and is currently supported by all major browser vendors.
Please advise on the method to correct these issues, or if these will be corrected in a future update. Otherwise we will need an official response document from Nagios outlining why these items are false positives and/or why your product is not affected by these vulnerabilities.
Thanks!
1. CGI Generic Cookie Injection Scripting
Synopsis: The remote web server is prone to cookie injection attacks.
Description: The remote web server hosts at least one CGI script that fails to adequately sanitize request strings with malicious JavaScript. By leveraging this issue, an attacker may be able to inject arbitrary
cookies. Depending on the structure of the web application, it may be possible to launch a 'session fixation' attack using this mechanism.
2. CGI Generic HTML Injections (quick test)
Synopsis: The remote web server may be prone to HTML injections.
Description: The remote web server hosts CGI scripts that fail to adequately sanitize request strings with malicious JavaScript. The remote web server may be vulnerable to IFRAME injections or cross-site scripting attacks
3. CGI Generic XSS (extended patterns)
Synopsis: The remote web server is prone to cross-site scripting attacks.
Description: The remote web server hosts one or more CGI scripts that fail to adequately sanitize request strings with malicious JavaScript. By leveraging this issue, an attacker may be able to cause arbitrary HTML
and script code to be executed in a user's browser within the security context of the affected site. These XSS vulnerabilities are likely to be 'non-persistent' or 'reflected'."
4. Web Application Potentially Vulnerable to Clickjacking
Synopsis: The remote web server may fail to mitigate a class of web application vulnerabilities.
Description: The remote web server does not set an X-Frame-Options response header in all content responses. This could potentially expose the site to a clickjacking or UI Redress attack wherein an attacker can trick a user into clicking an area of the vulnerable page that is different than what the user perceives the page to be. This can result in a user performing fraudulent or malicious transactions.
X-Frame-Options has been proposed by Microsoft as a way to mitigate clickjacking attacks and is currently supported by all major browser vendors.
Please advise on the method to correct these issues, or if these will be corrected in a future update. Otherwise we will need an official response document from Nagios outlining why these items are false positives and/or why your product is not affected by these vulnerabilities.
Thanks!