CVE-2008-0455 in HTTP Server
Summary
by MITRE
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the mod_negotiation module in the Apache HTTP Server 2.2.6 and earlier in the 2.2.x series, 2.0.61 and earlier in the 2.0.x series, and 1.3.39 and earlier in the 1.3.x series allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML by uploading a file with a name containing XSS sequences and a file extension, which leads to injection within a (1) "406 Not Acceptable" or (2) "300 Multiple Choices" HTTP response when the extension is omitted in a request for the file.
If you want to get best quality of vulnerability data, you may have to visit VulDB.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 12/28/2024
The vulnerability described in CVE-2008-0455 represents a critical cross-site scripting flaw within the mod_negotiation module of Apache HTTP Server versions prior to the specified patches. This vulnerability specifically affects the 1.3.x, 2.0.x, and 2.2.x series of the Apache server, creating a dangerous condition where authenticated users can manipulate the server's response handling mechanisms through carefully crafted file uploads. The flaw operates by exploiting the server's content negotiation process, which determines the most appropriate representation of a resource based on client preferences and server capabilities. When a user uploads a file containing malicious XSS sequences within its name but with a file extension, the server's handling of these requests creates opportunities for code injection in specific HTTP responses.
The technical execution of this vulnerability relies on the server's behavior when processing requests for files with ambiguous extensions or when the extension is omitted from the request. During the content negotiation process, Apache's mod_negotiation module generates either a 406 Not Acceptable response or a 300 Multiple Choices response when it cannot determine the appropriate content type or when multiple options exist. These responses contain user-supplied data from the filename without proper sanitization, creating injection points where malicious scripts can be executed in the context of the victim's browser. The vulnerability specifically leverages the fact that the server does not adequately escape or validate the filename data before incorporating it into these HTTP responses, allowing attackers to embed XSS payloads that persist until the response is rendered by a victim's browser.
The operational impact of this vulnerability extends beyond simple script injection, as it enables attackers to potentially execute arbitrary code in the victim's browser context, leading to session hijacking, credential theft, or redirection to malicious sites. The authentication requirement for exploitation means that attackers must first gain access to an account with upload privileges, which typically limits the scope to internal users or those who have been compromised through other means. However, the implications remain severe because authenticated users often have elevated privileges and access to sensitive data within the web application environment. The vulnerability affects not just the web server itself but also the applications running on top of it, as the injected scripts can access cookies, local storage, and other browser resources that applications rely upon for security.
The vulnerability aligns with CWE-79 which describes Cross-Site Scripting flaws in web applications, specifically addressing the improper neutralization of input during web page generation. It also corresponds to ATT&CK technique T1566 which covers Phishing with malicious attachments, as the attack vector involves uploading malicious files that exploit server-side processing to deliver payloads to unsuspecting users. Mitigation strategies include upgrading to patched versions of Apache HTTP Server where the mod_negotiation module properly sanitizes user-supplied data in HTTP responses, implementing strict file naming conventions that prevent XSS sequences in filenames, and configuring the server to disable content negotiation when not required. Additional protective measures involve implementing Content Security Policy headers, using proper input validation and output encoding, and conducting regular security audits of web applications to identify similar injection vulnerabilities in other modules or components that might be vulnerable to similar attacks.