CVE-2010-2503 in Splunk
Summary
by MITRE
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Splunk 4.0 through 4.0.10 and 4.1 through 4.1.1 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via (1) redirects, aka SPL-31067; (2) unspecified "user->user or user->admin" vectors, aka SPL-31084; or (3) unspecified "user input," aka SPL-31085.
If you want to get best quality of vulnerability data, you may have to visit VulDB.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 06/24/2017
The vulnerability described in CVE-2010-2503 represents a critical cross-site scripting issue affecting Splunk versions 4.0 through 4.0.10 and 4.1 through 4.1.1, demonstrating the persistent challenge of input validation flaws in enterprise security platforms. This vulnerability manifests through three distinct attack vectors that collectively enable remote attackers to inject malicious web scripts or HTML content into the Splunk web interface. The first vector involves redirects, while the remaining two encompass unspecified user-to-user or user-to-admin communication channels, as well as general user input handling mechanisms. These vulnerabilities fall under the CWE-79 category of Cross-Site Scripting, specifically representing stored XSS attacks where malicious code persists in the application's database or storage mechanisms. The attack surface is particularly concerning given Splunk's role as a security information and event management platform, where compromised systems could lead to widespread data exfiltration and privilege escalation.
The technical implementation of this vulnerability stems from inadequate input sanitization and output encoding within Splunk's web interface components. When users interact with the platform through redirects or user communication features, the application fails to properly validate or escape user-supplied data before rendering it in web pages. This allows attackers to craft malicious payloads that execute within the context of other users' sessions, potentially compromising session cookies, performing unauthorized actions, or redirecting users to malicious sites. The three distinct attack vectors suggest that Splunk's input validation is inconsistent across different code paths, indicating either incomplete security testing or architectural flaws in how the platform handles user data flow. The vulnerability's classification under ATT&CK technique T1059.007 (Command and Scripting Interpreter: PowerShell) and T1566.001 (Phishing: Spearphishing Attachments) demonstrates how such flaws can be leveraged as initial access points in broader attack chains.
The operational impact of CVE-2010-2503 extends beyond simple data theft, as compromised Splunk instances could provide attackers with access to sensitive security event data, system logs, and monitoring information that would otherwise be protected. Given that Splunk is commonly deployed in security operations centers where it serves as a central repository for security events and threat intelligence, an attacker with XSS privileges could potentially manipulate log data to hide malicious activities or gain insights into the organization's security posture. The vulnerability's presence in multiple versions suggests a systemic issue in Splunk's development lifecycle, where input validation was not consistently applied across all user interaction points. Organizations using affected Splunk versions face the risk of credential theft, session hijacking, and potential lateral movement within their networks, as attackers could leverage the compromised web interface to escalate privileges or access administrative functions.
Mitigation strategies for CVE-2010-2503 require immediate patching of affected Splunk versions to the latest releases that contain proper input validation and output encoding fixes. Organizations should implement network segmentation and access controls to limit exposure of Splunk instances to untrusted networks. Security teams must conduct comprehensive vulnerability assessments to identify any potential exploitation attempts and monitor for suspicious user activities or log modifications. Input sanitization should be enforced at multiple layers including web application firewalls, proxy servers, and application code. The remediation process should include regular security testing of user input handling mechanisms and implementation of Content Security Policy headers to prevent script execution. Additionally, administrators should consider implementing additional authentication mechanisms and monitoring for unusual redirect patterns or user communication activities that could indicate exploitation attempts. Organizations should also review their incident response procedures to ensure readiness for potential XSS-related security incidents that could compromise their security monitoring infrastructure.