CVE-2022-42252
Description
A flaw was found in Apache Tomcat. If the server is configured to ignore invalid HTTP headers, the server does not reject a request containing an invalid content-length header, making it vulnerable to a request smuggling attack.
Statement
Red Hat Satellite does not include the affected Apache Tomcat, however, Tomcat is shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and consumed by the Candlepin component of Satellite. Red Hat Satellite users are therefore advised to check the impact state of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, since any necessary fixes will be distributed through the platform.
Tomcat requires a non-standard setting of rejectIllegalHeader = false. Also it demands Tomcat to be behind a proxy reverse proxy that also failed to reject the request with the invalid header. A malicious attacker would need time and efforts to go through the environment and jeopardize the environment by accessing protected data. Hence the CVSS score of 4.8.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 4.8 | 7.5 | 7.5 |
| Attack Vector | Network | Network | Network |
| Attack Complexity | High | Low | Low |
| Privileges Required | None | None | None |
| User Interaction | None | None | None |
| Scope | Unchanged | Unchanged | Unchanged |
| Confidentiality | Low | None | None |
| Integrity Impact | Low | High | High |
| Availability Impact | None | None | None |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
cve.org: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Red Hat CVSS v3 Score Explanation
Attack Complexity (H): This attack demands a specific scenario where the Tomcat must be configure with a specific configuration (rejectIllegalHeader = false) while behind a reverse proxy that also fails to handle the malicious request.
Integrity (L): A request smuggling attack is not certain to impact integrity and the attacker would have to invest a lot of time and efforts. A request smuggling attack would mostly be used by acquiring data instead of jeopardizing data against a server. But still there's the chance to capture a user session and access protected resources..
Confidentiality (L): Considering the amount of variants, the data confidentiality is uncertain to be compromised. Also due to the nature of the attack not all data is captured by the attacker but only partial of the smuggled requests.
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Integrity,Non-Repudiation,Access Control
Technical Impact: Unexpected State; Hide Activities; Bypass Protection Mechanism
An attacker could create HTTP messages to exploit a number of weaknesses including 1) the message can trick the web server to associate a URL with another URL's webpage and caching the contents of the webpage (web cache poisoning attack), 2) the message can be structured to bypass the firewall protection mechanisms and gain unauthorized access to a web application, and 3) the message can invoke a script or a page that returns client credentials (similar to a Cross Site Scripting attack).
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
