1. Introduction
ManageEngine ADManager Plus has a cross-site scripting vulnerability in the ‘computerName’ parameter. This allows an attacker to inject malicious scripts into web pages viewed by users, potentially stealing credentials or performing actions on their behalf. Affected systems are typically those running ADManager Plus as part of their identity and access management infrastructure. A successful exploit could compromise confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the affected system and connected resources.
2. Technical Explanation
- Root cause: Missing input validation on the ‘computerName’ parameter allows arbitrary JavaScript execution.
- Exploit mechanism: An attacker sends a crafted URL to a user, containing malicious JavaScript in the ‘computerName’ parameter. When the user accesses the URL, the script executes within their browser context. For example:
http://[ADManager Plus server]/jsp/admin/tools/remote_share.jsp?computerName= - Scope: ManageEngine ADManager Plus versions prior to a fix are affected.
3. Detection and Assessment
Confirming vulnerability requires checking the installed version of ADManager Plus and testing for input sanitization issues.
- Quick checks: Check the ADManager Plus ‘About’ page in the web UI to determine the installed version.
- Scanning: Nessus plugin ID 58937 may detect this vulnerability, but results should be verified manually.
- Logs and evidence: Examine web server logs for requests containing suspicious characters or JavaScript code within the ‘computerName’ parameter of ‘/jsp/admin/tools/remote_share.jsp’.
4. Solution / Remediation Steps
There is currently no known solution for this vulnerability. Mitigation focuses on limiting exposure and monitoring for exploitation attempts.
4.1 Preparation
- Services: No services need to be stopped, but monitor system resources during testing. A roll back plan involves restoring from the pre-change backup if issues occur.
- Dependencies: None. Change approval may be needed depending on your organization’s policies.
4.2 Implementation
- Step 1: Implement a web application firewall (WAF) rule to block requests containing suspicious characters or JavaScript code in the ‘computerName’ parameter.
- Step 2: Monitor web server logs for exploitation attempts and investigate any suspicious activity.
4.3 Config or Code Example
Before
After
4.4 Security Practices Relevant to This Vulnerability
Practices that directly address this vulnerability type include input validation and least privilege access control.
- Practice 1: Input validation prevents malicious code from being processed by the application.
- Practice 2: Least privilege limits the impact of a successful exploit by restricting user permissions.
4.5 Automation (Optional)
5. Verification / Validation
Verify that the implemented mitigation measures are effective by attempting a test exploit and confirming it is blocked.
- Post-fix check: Attempt to access the vulnerable URL with a malicious payload (e.g.,
http://[ADManager Plus server]/jsp/admin/tools/remote_share.jsp?computerName=). The WAF should block the request and prevent the script from executing. - Re-test: Check web server logs to confirm that the malicious request was blocked by the WAF.
- Smoke test: Verify that legitimate users can still access ADManager Plus functionality without issues.
- Monitoring: Monitor web server logs for any attempts to exploit this vulnerability and create alerts for suspicious activity.
6. Preventive Measures and Monitoring
Update security baselines to include input validation requirements, implement secure coding practices, and establish a regular patch management process.
- Baselines: Update your web application security baseline to require strict input validation for all user-supplied data.
- Pipelines: Integrate static analysis tools into the CI/CD pipeline to identify potential XSS vulnerabilities during development.
- Asset and patch process: Establish a regular schedule for reviewing and applying security patches for all software, including ADManager Plus.
7. Risks, Side Effects, and Roll Back
Implementing WAF rules may cause false positives, blocking legitimate traffic. Incorrectly configured rules could disrupt service availability.
- Risk or side effect 1: False positives from WAF rules can block legitimate user requests. Mitigation involves carefully tuning the WAF rules and monitoring for any disruptions.
- Roll back: Remove or disable the WAF rule if it causes issues. Restore from backup if necessary.
8. References and Resources
- Vendor advisory or bulletin: https://www.manageengine.com/products/admanager-plus/security-updates.html
- NVD or CVE entry: https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2010-5050
- Product or platform documentation relevant to the fix: https://www.manageengine.com/products/admanager-plus/help/admin_tools_remote_share.html