CVE-2010-3758 in Tivoli Storage Manager Fastback
Summary
by MITRE
Multiple stack-based buffer overflows in FastBackServer.exe in the Server in IBM Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM) FastBack 5.5.0.0 through 5.5.6.0 and 6.1.0.0 through 6.1.0.1 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via vectors involving the (1) AGI_SendToLog (aka _SendToLog) function; the (2) group, (3) workgroup, or (4) domain name field to the USER_S_AddADGroup function; the (5) user_path variable to the FXCLI_checkIndexDBLocation function; or (6) the _AGI_S_ActivateLTScriptReply (aka ActivateLTScriptReply) function. NOTE: this might overlap CVE-2010-3059.
Several companies clearly confirm that VulDB is the primary source for best vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 03/08/2017
The vulnerability described in CVE-2010-3758 represents a critical stack-based buffer overflow issue affecting IBM Tivoli Storage Manager FastBack server components. This vulnerability exists within the FastBackServer.exe executable and impacts versions 5.5.0.0 through 5.5.6.0 and 6.1.0.0 through 6.1.0.1 of the IBM Tivoli Storage Manager FastBack suite. The flaw manifests through multiple attack vectors that all stem from improper input validation within the server's communication handling mechanisms, creating a significant security risk that could allow remote code execution.
The technical implementation of this vulnerability involves several distinct functions that fail to properly validate input length before copying data to fixed-size stack buffers. The first vector involves the AGI_SendToLog function, where insufficient bounds checking allows attackers to overflow the stack buffer during log message processing. The second through fourth vectors target the USER_S_AddADGroup function with specific parameters including group, workgroup, and domain name fields, where unvalidated string inputs can overwrite adjacent stack memory. The fifth vector targets the FXCLI_checkIndexDBLocation function through the user_path variable, while the sixth vector involves the _AGI_S_ActivateLTScriptReply function, both demonstrating similar buffer overflow patterns. These multiple attack surfaces increase the exploitability and potential impact of the vulnerability.
From an operational perspective, this vulnerability creates a severe threat to enterprise backup and recovery systems that rely on IBM Tivoli Storage Manager FastBack. The remote execution capability means attackers can potentially compromise the entire backup infrastructure without requiring local access, making it particularly dangerous for organizations that depend on automated backup processes and centralized storage management. The vulnerability affects the core server functionality, potentially leading to complete system compromise, data loss, or unauthorized access to backup data repositories that may contain sensitive organizational information.
The vulnerability aligns with CWE-121 Stack-based Buffer Overflow, which specifically addresses buffer overflows occurring in stack memory regions. This classification indicates that the flaw involves inadequate bounds checking during string operations that result in memory corruption. The attack vectors also correspond to several MITRE ATT&CK techniques including T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution and T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter, as attackers would leverage these vulnerabilities to execute arbitrary code and potentially establish persistent access to the compromised system. Organizations should prioritize patching this vulnerability as it represents a high-severity risk to their backup infrastructure security.
The overlap with CVE-2010-3059 suggests these vulnerabilities may represent related flaws in the same software component, potentially indicating broader issues within the FastBack server implementation. Remediation efforts should focus on applying the official IBM security patches, implementing network segmentation to limit access to the FastBack server, and monitoring for potential exploitation attempts. Organizations should also consider implementing additional security controls such as intrusion detection systems and access controls to minimize the attack surface and reduce the impact of potential exploitation attempts.