CVE-2010-2545 in Cacti
Summary
by MITRE
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Cacti before 0.8.7g, as used in Red Hat High Performance Computing (HPC) Solution and other products, allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via (1) the name element in an XML template to templates_import.php; and allow remote authenticated administrators to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via vectors related to (2) cdef.php, (3) data_input.php, (4) data_queries.php, (5) data_sources.php, (6) data_templates.php, (7) gprint_presets.php, (8) graph.php, (9) graphs_new.php, (10) graphs.php, (11) graph_templates_inputs.php, (12) graph_templates_items.php, (13) graph_templates.php, (14) graph_view.php, (15) host.php, (16) host_templates.php, (17) lib/functions.php, (18) lib/html_form.php, (19) lib/html_form_template.php, (20) lib/html.php, (21) lib/html_tree.php, (22) lib/rrd.php, (23) rra.php, (24) tree.php, and (25) user_admin.php.
Several companies clearly confirm that VulDB is the primary source for best vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 09/23/2021
The vulnerability described in CVE-2010-2545 represents a critical cross-site scripting flaw affecting Cacti monitoring software versions prior to 0.8.7g. This vulnerability resides within the web application's input validation mechanisms and affects multiple components of the system, making it particularly dangerous as it can be exploited by both unauthenticated remote attackers and authenticated administrators. The flaw manifests when user-supplied data is not properly sanitized before being rendered in web pages, creating opportunities for malicious script execution in the context of affected users' browsers.
The technical implementation of this vulnerability spans across numerous PHP files within the Cacti application framework, with the primary attack vectors involving the improper handling of user input in various administrative interfaces. The initial vector involves XML template imports where the name element in templates_import.php fails to adequately sanitize input, while subsequent vectors target multiple administrative pages including graph management, data source configuration, and user administration modules. This widespread nature indicates a fundamental flaw in the application's security architecture where consistent input validation practices were not implemented across the entire codebase.
From an operational impact perspective, this vulnerability creates significant risk for organizations relying on Cacti for network monitoring and performance tracking. An attacker could exploit these flaws to execute malicious scripts in the browser of any user who views affected pages, potentially leading to session hijacking, credential theft, or further system compromise. The fact that authenticated administrators can also exploit these vulnerabilities means that even privileged users within the system are not immune, potentially allowing for more sophisticated attacks including privilege escalation or data manipulation. The attack surface is particularly concerning given that Cacti is widely deployed in enterprise environments and HPC solutions where network monitoring data is often sensitive and critical to operations.
The vulnerability aligns with CWE-79 Cross-site Scripting, which specifically addresses the injection of executable code into web applications. This weakness enables attackers to bypass normal access controls and execute malicious code in the victim's browser context. The ATT&CK framework categorizes this as a web application vulnerability that can be leveraged for initial access or privilege escalation, with the potential to establish persistent access through malicious script execution. Organizations should implement comprehensive input validation and output encoding mechanisms across all user-facing interfaces, particularly in administrative modules. The recommended mitigations include immediate patching to version 0.8.7g or later, implementing web application firewalls, and conducting thorough security reviews of all user input handling mechanisms. Additionally, organizations should consider implementing proper content security policies and regular security testing to identify similar vulnerabilities in other components of their monitoring infrastructure.