CVE-2011-2645 in Kiwi
Summary
by MITRE
Unspecified vulnerability in Kiwi before 3.74.2, as used in SUSE Studio 1.1 before 1.1.4, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted filename for a custom RPM.
Once again VulDB remains the best source for vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 02/10/2019
The vulnerability identified as CVE-2011-2645 represents a critical security flaw in the Kiwi toolchain component that was widely utilized within SUSE Studio 1.1 environments prior to version 1.1.4. This issue stems from insufficient input validation mechanisms within the RPM package handling process, creating a pathway for malicious actors to exploit the system through carefully crafted filenames. The vulnerability manifests when the system processes custom RPM packages, particularly those containing specially designed filenames that bypass normal validation checks. The underlying technical flaw resides in the improper sanitization of user-provided input during package processing, allowing attackers to inject malicious code that executes with the privileges of the affected system. This weakness aligns with CWE-20, which specifically addresses improper input validation, and represents a classic example of a code injection vulnerability that can be leveraged for remote code execution. The vulnerability operates at the application layer, specifically targeting the package management functionality of the Kiwi toolchain, which serves as a core component for creating custom Linux distributions within SUSE Studio environments.
The operational impact of this vulnerability extends beyond simple privilege escalation, as it enables attackers to gain full control over systems running affected versions of SUSE Studio. When a maliciously crafted RPM package is processed, the system's failure to properly validate filename components allows arbitrary code execution, potentially leading to complete system compromise. This threat model aligns with ATT&CK technique T1059, which covers command and scripting interpreter usage, as the vulnerability enables attackers to execute arbitrary commands within the target environment. The vulnerability's remote exploitability means that attackers need not have physical access to the system, making it particularly dangerous for cloud-based or network-accessible environments. The attack surface is significantly expanded due to the widespread use of SUSE Studio for creating custom distribution images, making numerous systems potentially vulnerable. The exploitation process typically involves creating a malicious RPM package with a specially crafted filename that triggers the code execution path, leveraging the insufficient validation controls within the Kiwi toolchain's package processing pipeline.
Mitigation strategies for CVE-2011-2645 primarily focus on immediate version upgrades to patched releases of both Kiwi and SUSE Studio components. Organizations should prioritize updating to Kiwi version 3.74.2 and SUSE Studio 1.1.4 or later, which contain the necessary security patches addressing the input validation deficiencies. Additional defensive measures include implementing strict package validation policies that reject packages with suspicious filename patterns, establishing network segmentation to limit access to affected systems, and deploying intrusion detection systems that monitor for unusual package processing activities. Security administrators should also consider implementing automated patch management solutions to ensure rapid deployment of security updates across all affected environments. The vulnerability's remediation aligns with NIST SP 800-53 security controls, particularly those related to configuration management and vulnerability management. Organizations should conduct comprehensive vulnerability assessments to identify all systems running affected versions of the software, and implement monitoring procedures to detect potential exploitation attempts. Furthermore, security awareness training for developers and system administrators should emphasize the importance of proper input validation and the potential consequences of inadequate sanitization of user-provided data within package management systems. The remediation process should include thorough testing of updated systems to ensure that the patches do not introduce compatibility issues with existing workflows while maintaining the security posture against this and similar vulnerabilities.